Jump to content

User talk:Softlavender/Archive 10

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Archive 5←Archive 8Archive 9Archive 10Archive 11

The Signpost: 28 October 2018

* Read this Signpost in full * Single-page * Unsubscribe * MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 19:10, 28 October 2018 (UTC)

Maria Callas

Trying to locate source for Maria Callas' citizenship in Italy in 1949 as listed in Wikipedia Italy (https://it.wikipedia.org/wiki/Maria_Callas). Callas was a US born and raised citizen and also Greek citizen (due to parent's Greek citizenship).Filmartiste 23:22, 31 October 2018 (UTC)mjsullus — Preceding unsigned comment added by Mjsullus (talk • contribs)

Mjsullus, you should post any comment about content on the talkpage of the article; for instance, in this thread: Talk:Maria Callas#Nationality in first sentence.

Also, please remember to sign your talkpage posts with four tildes, like this: ~~~~

Thank you. Softlavender (talk) 23:35, 31 October 2018 (UTC)

Edit warring?

How was I in any way edit warring? That’s an incredibly loose way of throwing that around. Rusted AutoParts 04:48, 5 November 2018 (UTC)

You are under a 1RR restriction. If you make that edit again (which by the way you made here and here 3 months ago) within 24 hours you will breach your 1RR and will be reported to ANEW; hence the obligatory notification. The information you are inserting is incorrect; post-production on Fighting with My Family ended on August 26, 2017, well over a year ago. Softlavender (talk) 04:59, 5 November 2018 (UTC)
1) I don’t plan to make a revert 2) 3RR and 1RR comes into effect within a twenty four hour period, not within months of an edit I actually forgot I made before. 3) I just really don’t understand the possessiveness you have over this article, please read WP:OWN. And do you even have a source in regards to FWMF’s post production end date? Rusted AutoParts 05:05, 5 November 2018 (UTC)
For ANEW purposes, I am required to give you a talkpage warning on your TP, and since you are under 1RR that warning needed to be after you made that one edit that undid another editor's actions. Softlavender (talk) 05:18, 5 November 2018 (UTC)

ANI

You're bang out of order here. The thread explained why the IP edits were made and this ineluctably annuls any "sockpuppet" accusation because if I had the ability to edit the contributions, I'd have logged myself in. My self-revert was exactly an acknowledgement of my IP contributions, and I volunteered my identity way before it was even suggested I might be the same person as the IP. --Ishmailer (talk) 03:30, 6 November 2018 (UTC)

I closed the thread before it got ugly for User:Ishmailer Legacypac (talk) 03:34, 6 November 2018 (UTC)
Things were not going to get ugly for me. I was the petitioner and I've committed two infringements. One got me blocked, so no boomeerang there, the other I self-reverted a 3rr breach, so no boomerang there either. Well it will be interesting to see what sanitising-of-violations tactics the community is going to come up with next to protect its favoured editors. --Ishmailer (talk) 10:34, 8 November 2018 (UTC)

Fred Bauder

The information was a link to an instance in Fred's personal life which was added to the ArbCom questions and answers. Its been removed. I prefer not to say more since doing so would in my opinion be almost as bad as linking in the first place. Thanks for asking and not assuming anything.(Littleolive oil (talk) 04:15, 12 November 2018 (UTC))

Ah, but you said "in an arbitration". That wasn't an arbitration; it was only Q&A for self-nominated candidates. Thanks for clarifying, anyway. Softlavender (talk) 04:19, 12 November 2018 (UTC)
I added the missing word election to read in my comment "arbitration election" and your "Q&A for self-nominated candidates" is more precise still. Adding the link made something personal and in the past, public. Whether I like what was linked to doesn't matter. Civility in a broad sense, in my opinion, has to do with respect and part of that respect is not dragging in off-Wikipedia personal information when it serves no fair purpose.(Littleolive oil (talk) 04:56, 12 November 2018 (UTC))
Littleolive oil, could you please, per WP:REDACTED, add

; edited ~~~~~

(BTW that's 5 tildes not 4) to the end of your signature, since I had already replied to you and quoted you (and now my quote looks inaccurate)? Thanks. Softlavender (talk) 05:02, 12 November 2018 (UTC)

This is new ground. Somehow I've never come across this before. So, hope its right and... good to know.(Littleolive oil (talk) 05:10, 12 November 2018 (UTC))
That looks fine ... although the added parenthesis is confusing (as are the parentheses you typically place around your signature). Softlavender (talk) 05:13, 12 November 2018 (UTC)
In all my years on Wikipedia I have never noticed this nor has anyone ever mentioned it. I'll fix the parenthesis problem in the future. Thank you. Littleolive oil (talk) 05:24, 12 November 2018 (UTC)
While we're on the subject, normal usage would be keeping a space between your signature and the punctuation/text that precedes it. Softlavender (talk) 05:29, 12 November 2018 (UTC)

I saw that. I figured your copy editor eye would see it but no energy to fix it tonight. I tend to see things first in an overarching way then to see specifics. I paint that way and choreograph that way; its a whole brain way of functioning and it takes a lot of physical effort to reverse that tendency and see specifics first. This does mean I make mistakes and don't always see them or see them too late. Littleolive oil (talk) 05:37, 12 November 2018 (UTC)

WP:INTERSPERSE

In this edit;[1] you appear to have inadvertently placed another editor's comment in the middle of my comment. Would you be so kind as to undo the editing of my comment by deleting or moving the comment that was interspersed in the middle of it? --Guy Macon (talk) 08:15, 12 November 2018 (UTC)

I restored the post (to the place it had been), which you had deleted in violation of WP:TPO. I have now moved it so that it does not cut into your post. Softlavender (talk) 08:33, 12 November 2018 (UTC)
Thanks! I was under the impression that if somebody edits my comments I can revert that edit. Am I wrong? Do I always have to move it if it is an interspersed comment? I want to do the right thing. --Guy Macon (talk) 08:40, 12 November 2018 (UTC)
No one edited your comment; they (inadvertently or out of ignorance) placed their own comment between the paragraphs of your very long copied post. That happens with some frequency -- particularly with editors without much talkpage experience, or when someone files an infinitely long initial complaint at ANI that has nearly a dozen paragraphs. If you object to it, either move their comment from inside your post and place it underneath yours, or add your signature to the paragraph they responded to so that it is clear that you posted that paragraph. Softlavender (talk) 08:48, 12 November 2018 (UTC)
I on the other hand have no hesitation in removing such a post with the comment, "DO NOT EDIT OTHER PEOPLES POSTS". -Roxy, the Prod. wooF 14:47, 12 November 2018 (UTC)
Softlavender, I left a reply to your question about the VANDAL tag on the ANI page. Please read it before you condemn me again. Mervyn Emrys (talk) 04:28, 13 November 2018 (UTC) I have also receive at least three alerts saying you left a message on my talk page, but am unable to find any messages. Please tell me what happened to them. Or were they references to the cleanup you did there on some inappropriate deletions? Mervyn Emrys (talk) 04:57, 13 November 2018 (UTC)
Mervyn Emrys, you can follow every single edit to your talk page, or any page, by viewing its edit history: [2]. The software alerts you to any change made to your talkpage with an orange message "you have new messages" and a number referring to the number of edits, but the actual edits could have been deletions or fixing typos rather than messages. The way to scroll through the edits to your talkpage is to choose a "prev" link in the edit history, and then keep clicking "Next edit" to see subsequent changes. Softlavender (talk) 05:15, 13 November 2018 (UTC)

2017 wikitext editor

Hi Softlavender. Thank you for your contributions so far, especially for your edits on Gab (social network). Since you've been adding plain references, it seems like you're still using the old wikitext editor. Do you know that there is a new wikitext editor with a better set of tools, like automatic citation filling, among other convenient features? You can enable it in Beta features. You can make this change global, too. This new wikitext editor is part of the new VisualEditor. But unlike VE, it does not incur much stress on your computer. I hope you will find this useful. Thank you. Tsumikiria (T/C) 02:14, 13 November 2018 (UTC)

Hi T, I really don't like Visual Editor. I appreciate you alerting me to this, and I may look into it, but I doubt that I will ever use Visual Editor. :) Softlavender (talk) 02:34, 13 November 2018 (UTC)

Article Tulio Capriles Mendoza

Hello, I have been asking to try to correct many errors and misleading quotes or sources use in this article. Please explain how to proceed in order to correct errors in the article if possible. Tumaca70 (talk) 05:45, 15 November 2018 (UTC)

Hi Tumaca70, please make your requests on the talkpage of the article, and use Template:Request edit to do so. For instance, use the suggested form in the "How to use" section of Template:Request edit. -- Softlavender (talk) 05:54, 15 November 2018 (UTC)

Deborah Lipstadt

Hi,

  1. your revert does not respect, that Lipstadt wrote nearly 150 works.
  2. why did you restore a not valid link in the section external links, http://www.js.emory.edu/faculty/lipstadthomepage.htm? The user wrote n/a.
  3. Is the english language concerning american persons always american english? What is the reason for this?

Have a good day. --Orik (talk) 13:01, 16 November 2018 (UTC)

  1. Don't put a parenthetical word in a header; don't make unexplained edits.
  2. "n/a" is an insufficiently clear edit summary, so is "not valid"; according to the article she is on the faculty at Emory University, so the link is valid -- if it is dead find the updated link to replace it.
  3. Yes, because they are Americans.
Softlavender (talk) 13:16, 16 November 2018 (UTC)
I do not understand yor Nr. 1. Which regulations do you have for headers and where I do find them. In other wikis it is quite usual to add „parenthetical" words in headers - I had to search for the meaning of your term - . Do you think, that she wrote only 4 books? A non skilled user would take this statement for true. 1. a.) Sorry, I forgot the link of your revert.[3] It is not so easy for me, to edit in a foreign language. 2. the link is not valid. Your assumption that there should be a valid link is in many cases not appropiate. I think it is not a good edit to restore a mistake. Every one is responsible for correct content. Why should i correct your mistake after such a revert. I edit with a interest into the content of a lemma, not because of supposed violations of formal things. Have a good day. --Orik (talk) 09:08, 17 November 2018 (UTC)
I made no mistakes; if you need to discuss article content further, it should be on the talkpage of the article rather than on usertalk. Softlavender (talk) 09:26, 17 November 2018 (UTC)
I understand that you reject my verdict about your edit and that things relating to lemmas belong to the talk page of this lemma. But my question in 1. is a general one. Which regulations concerning parenthetical words did you cite as a reason to revert my edit. Where do I find regulations about headers and so on? --Orik (talk) 14:59, 17 November 2018 (UTC)
You are not able to give me the regulations, which you pretended for the revert. I understand. There is no regulation concerning parentheses in the header. It was your personal opinion. Authors like you are not very helpful. They avert improvements or little amendments to articles justifying this with formal reasons. Leave this in the future! --Orik (talk) 16:12, 18 November 2018 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Case/Fred Bauder

You recently offered a statement in a request for arbitration. The Arbitration Committee has accepted that request for arbitration and an arbitration case has been opened at Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Case/Fred Bauder. Evidence that you wish the arbitrators to consider should be added to the evidence subpage, at Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Case/Fred Bauder/Evidence. Please add your evidence by November 27, 2018, which is when the evidence phase closes. You can also contribute to the case workshop subpage, Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Case/Fred Bauder/Workshop. For a guide to the arbitration process, see Wikipedia:Arbitration/Guide to arbitration. For the Arbitration Committee, --Cameron11598 (Talk) 21:03, 16 November 2018 (UTC)

ArbCom 2018 election voter message

Hello, Softlavender. Voting in the 2018 Arbitration Committee elections is now open until 23.59 on Sunday, 3 December. All users who registered an account before Sunday, 28 October 2018, made at least 150 mainspace edits before Thursday, 1 November 2018 and are not currently blocked are eligible to vote. Users with alternate accounts may only vote once.

The Arbitration Committee is the panel of editors responsible for conducting the Wikipedia arbitration process. It has the authority to impose binding solutions to disputes between editors, primarily for serious conduct disputes the community has been unable to resolve. This includes the authority to impose site bans, topic bans, editing restrictions, and other measures needed to maintain our editing environment. The arbitration policy describes the Committee's roles and responsibilities in greater detail.

If you wish to participate in the 2018 election, please review the candidates and submit your choices on the voting page. MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 18:42, 19 November 2018 (UTC)

Unblock thread not making progress

Hello Softlavender. You have commented in FrogCast's unblock thread at WP:AN. You were proposing on 16 November that we conduct an unblock discussion on the user's talk page. At present the user's talk access is disabled, apparently due to a long run of unproductive block appeals that weren't taking the process seriously. The past requests were declined by four different admins. Do you want to make a further statement or proposal in that thread? Otherwise it seems possible that the thread may drift into the archives with no consensus for unblock. Some admins (though not me) do seem to be leaning toward unblock, though I'm unsure if they are fully aware of the editor's quirky views. Thanks, EdJohnston (talk) 02:35, 22 November 2018 (UTC)

Hi EdJohnston, I've been off-wiki for a week so I did not see your message until just now. I don't see that thread on AN anymore, so if there is anything I should look at or whatever, let me know, otherwise I will pay no more mind to the situation. Softlavender (talk) 11:06, 26 November 2018 (UTC)
You think the Thanksgiving holiday gives you the right to take a vacation?? Next year you can gobble down your turkey and stuff yourself with stuffing while sitting at the computer and editing Wikipedia. Please remember life is all about balance, so do have some greens with the turkey and stuffing.--Bbb23 (talk) 16:37, 26 November 2018 (UTC)
What the f*ck, man? Just because I do not have a cool story to bring back from my vacay, like eating steak frites in Paris, or eating mayonnaise in Mozambique, does not mean I do not have every RIGHT to remove myself from this asylum from time to time. Softlavender (talk) 16:58, 26 November 2018 (UTC)
The appeal did indeed fall into the archives without a clear verdict. My own suggestion is to leave the matter there. The closing administrator at UTRS said (on 11 November):
Hello FrogCast, Thank you for the information on your previous account. I notice that on that account, and on your present account before the 'Murder of Seth Rich' issues arose, that you appear to have been editing constructively. I also note the assurances that you have given. However, having discussed matters with other admins, I am currently not convinced that, if immediately unblocked, the problems would not reoccur. You have put in six appeals in about a month and I think that you should take a timeout for reflection. My suggestion is to wait a month before your next appeal. When you next appeal, in order to persuade the reviewing admin, you should analyze and itemise the actions that led to your block and explain how you would handle things differently if similar situations arise in the future. If you agreed to keep away from 'Murder of Seth Rich' and related pages that would also help.
Although FrogCast is blocked from their talk page, they can still follow up at UTRS if they want to. Thanks, EdJohnston (talk) 18:24, 26 November 2018 (UTC)
OK thanks for the UTRS update, Ed. I still think if he is ever unblocked, at the very least that self-advertising on his userpage should be removed. Softlavender (talk) 05:13, 27 November 2018 (UTC)

Shock Brigade Harvester Boris

Regarding the talk page: The discussions were on different places, unfortunately, but you can see the result - edit warring over his talk page - best in the talk page's history.

For a start: User talk:Pigsonthewing#User talk:Shock Brigade Harvester Boris. My 2ct: The talk page of a user who died shows better than any condolence who he or she was. Please restore it. --Gerda Arendt (talk) 11:52, 28 November 2018 (UTC)

There are several problems involved with leaving the talkpage at 253 threads and 416,796 bytes. (1) Accessibility. (2) People will not realize that SBHB has died. (3) His memorial posts are buried below 400,000 bytes of text and 250 threads. (4) I imagine his loved ones and on-wiki friends would prefer to be able to easily view the memorial posts. (5) Editors will continue to post random notices and templates and questions, because they cannot easily see that SBHB has died. Softlavender (talk) 12:05, 28 November 2018 (UTC)
Where can we discuss this? When I die, please don't do that to me. As I said in the discussion, no deceased template, no archiving, please please please. I am a supporter of accessibility, but meeting a user in what he said (without having to turn to an archive) is a higher valua. Why show that he died? Some will know, and would the others care? - Will you kindly restore the talk page which you reduced rather boldly, and obviously without consulting what had happened already? - It's like having an image of a loved one visible, or in a drawer, do you understand? --Gerda Arendt (talk) 13:22, 28 November 2018 (UTC)
No, I am not going to restore the 400,000 bytes of text and 250 threads, because of the 5 reasons I gave before. Your requests regarding your own talkpage are noted, and I'm sure will be remembered. If you think people who do not currently know that SBHB has died would not care to know, then I'm afraid you and I are in massive disagreement. Softlavender (talk) 13:33, 28 November 2018 (UTC)
We are in severe disagreement. To stay in the comparison: not only is the image in a drawer, it is also cut up in pieces. - IF that talk has to be archived - which I doubt - the automatic archiving established by Pigsonthewing was the better way. - If you refuse to restore the talk, would you have the courtsey to restore threads where he replied in 2018? + the one titled Arbcom which is relevant just now?? - I link to these from many places, including my arbcom "guide", - I also link from my statements in the "bad news" thread. Kindly think about it. --Gerda Arendt (talk) 14:36, 28 November 2018 (UTC)
Hi folks, this is all a little over my head (sorry to intrude if it's inappropriate), but I can say that we in the family have no issue with the archival of the majority of my dad's talk page--it's easy enough to access the archives through the links on the right. As long as no information was actually deleted and the content has just been moved to an archive, the cleaned-up page it makes it much easier for us to navigate to the memorial posts and well-wishes. If there's something actually missing from the talk page, is it possible to just move that content to the most recent archive? I've enjoyed going through some of the old threads and conversations over the past couple weeks to see the kinds of things he worked on. Sarritt (talk) 18:52, 28 November 2018 (UTC)
Thank you for your comment, Sarritt; the cleaned-up page does make it much easier to navigate the memorial posts and well wishes. I'm glad to hear the clean-up was helpful. And yes, all of the 250 moved threads are in the archives, most recent last, and so on. Nothing was deleted, only archived. Softlavender (talk) 18:57, 28 November 2018 (UTC)

The Signpost: 1 December 2018

* Read this Signpost in full * Single-page * Unsubscribe * MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 04:47, 1 December 2018 (UTC)

POV issues on Ali and Nino and Kurban Said

Hello, I saw you reverted my removal of the POV dispute tags from the articles, saying the disputes are not dead. That is totally fine. I encourage people to revert me any time they believe I have erred. However, the POV dispute tag is for articles where two or more editors are currently in disagreement about whether the article is neutral. In this case no one has commented on the article talk pages regarding pov issues in more than 5 years. If you personally feel that the articles still have problems, it's ok for you to just change or remove the offending material. If you don't have time to do that, it would be best to tag the offending material with more specific tags such as {{undue weight}}, {{original research}}, or {{unreliable sources}}. I will do that myself if I have time, but you seem to be more familiar with the subject and what exactly the issues may be so it might be best for you to fix the problems yourself. Cheers, -- LWG talk 20:06, 10 December 2018 (UTC)

BLP

BLP applies everywhere. The content concludes, form watching the show, that Jeff Bezos is being satirised as a Talosian. This is the kind of "user thinks X looks like Y" stuff that WP:SYN forbids. In as much as it has a source, it's IGN, a gaming blog. This is shit content. I am amazed that peopel are going to bat for it, and not even trying to source it from reliable sources. Guy (Help!) 00:17, 11 December 2018 (UTC)

Firstly, please keep discussion on the article's talkpage, not on usertalk. Secondly, if you think that there is interpretation or editorialization in a plot summary, then one appropriate possible course of action would be to BOLDLY remove or reword what you perceive as interpretation or editorialization, not the entire plot summary. If your BOLD action is reverted, then get consensus on talk. Or file a thread on WP:BLPN. Accurate descriptions of actual parody does not violate BLP. Clearly a representation of Jeff Bezos appears in the show, right? Thirdly, plot summaries do not require sourcing. Please don't reply here; keep the discussion on article talk. You're free to copy this entire conversation there if you like. Softlavender (talk) 00:26, 11 December 2018 (UTC)

WP:ANI

Hi. If you're going to accuse me of being "in violation" of a guideline, at a widely-watched noticeboard that I don't watchlist, I would appreciate you having the courtesy of informing me about it on my talkpage if I have not already been informed.

Also, removing an incorrect and inappropriate "only warning", with an explanation that it has been removed, does not "change the meaning" of anything. MPS1992 (talk) 20:55, 11 December 2018 (UTC)

The Great American Songbook

I saw your revert of my edit. The edit summary read "Please discuss such a drastic alteration and removal on the article's talkpage before performing ot reverting." What you referring to, unless I'm mistaken, is that I moved the section of singers and songs further down the page. You consider this drastic? That section is unsourced and could easy be deleted by anyone. Right?
Vmavanti (talk) 02:37, 13 December 2018 (UTC)

You removed 1,662 bytes, including several citations such as books and the New York Times. Please take any other comments to the article's talkpage; discussion of content belongs on article-talk, not usertalk. Softlavender (talk) 02:41, 13 December 2018 (UTC)

American date style for American biographies

Is there a guideline that establishes this that I'm not aware of? As as far as I know, we retain whatever date format was first used, unless there are strong national ties to the topic, and as far as I can tell looking back through discussions, simply being American doesn't count as "strong national ties." --tronvillain (talk) 21:36, 14 December 2018 (UTC)

We don't retain date-styles that are inappropriate or incorrect. The correct date/spelling style for British, Commonwealth (except for Canada, which uses either U.S. or UK style), or Indian subjects is UK style. The correct date/spelling style for American subjects is American date/spelling style. The correct date/spelling style for Continental European subjects, or universal subjects, etc., often varies and is subject to consensus or MOS:DATERET. The correct date/spelling style for people who have emigrated from the U.S. to the UK or vice versa is generally the style that they themselves prefer or identify with -- for example, some British actors move to Hollywood for work but retain their Britishness; some Americans move to Britain for work or marriage or whatever reason but retain their American citizenship; some from either country move and change their citizenship, in which case we use the date/spelling style of their current citizenship or identification. See also the current discussion at User talk:Cullen328. Also helpful: Date format by country. -- Softlavender (talk) 21:47, 14 December 2018 (UTC)
I'll see if I can get some clarification over at the manual of style. I was under the impression that "strong national ties" are not simply any national ties, and that neither date nor spelling style for random "American" subjects are obligated to be "American style." --tronvillain (talk) 22:48, 14 December 2018 (UTC)
Your impression is mistaken. In addition, citizenship is by definition a strong national tie, unless the subject has emigrated. There is nothing "random" about American people; American companies; American food; American media, films, television shows, and radio shows; American products; etc. Softlavender (talk) 22:54, 14 December 2018 (UTC)
@Tronvillain: Softlavender is 100% correct here. Being British is a strong national tie. Being American is a strong national tie. Being Polish and only being notable for serving in the British Royal Air Force would even be a strong national (British) tie. MPS1992 (talk) 23:21, 14 December 2018 (UTC)

Your ANI and request

Hi Softlavender! I hope you're having a fun and stress-free holiday season so far! I saw your comment here that was made in this ANI discussion here. I apologize for the delay responding to your request - I was busy with real-life obligations and I noticed that the discussion has since been archived before I was able to respond. I just wanted to let you know and apologize for being so late to the party... let me know if there's still an issue going on involving your ANI discussion (in fact, I'd create a new ANI if this is the case), and I'll be happy to take a look and see what I can do. Happy editing! Best regards - ~Oshwah~(talk) (contribs) 11:36, 17 December 2018 (UTC)

Hi Oshwah, I was away for a few days, and just now looked back into this. Here is the ANI thread, which was autoarchived without resolution: WP:Administrators' noticeboard/IncidentArchive998#Possible IP abuser - DPPTPP. I really don't know any more about it beyond that, but I think it bears looking into. Softlavender (talk) 04:06, 19 December 2018 (UTC)
Softlavender - Cool, thanks for the information. I'll add it to my to-do list for today and I'll see what I can't find. :-) ~Oshwah~(talk) (contribs) 04:46, 19 December 2018 (UTC)

Notice

You recently offered a statement in a request for arbitration. The Arbitration Committee has accepted that request for arbitration and an arbitration case has been opened at Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Case/GiantSnowman. Evidence that you wish the arbitrators to consider should be added to the evidence subpage, at Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Case/GiantSnowman/Evidence. Please add your evidence by December 31, 2018, which is when the evidence phase closes. You can also contribute to the case workshop subpage, Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Case/GiantSnowman/Workshop. For a guide to the arbitration process, see Wikipedia:Arbitration/Guide to arbitration. For the Arbitration Committee, Bradv🍁 21:41, 17 December 2018 (UTC)

A field full of lavender for you!

A field full of lavender for you!
This has been on my mind for a long time after that ANI in which you participated against me. I wanted to make a good will gesture towards you and I did not find any other better way to do that than this. Happy editing and enjoy the lavenders! Sheriff | ☎ 911 | 01:44, 18 December 2018 (UTC)

Merry Merry

Happy Christmas!
Hello Softlavender,
Early in A Child's Christmas in Wales the young Dylan and his friend Jim Prothero witness smoke pouring from Jim's home. After the conflagration has been extinguished Dylan writes that

Nobody could have had a noisier Christmas Eve. And when the firemen turned off the hose and were standing in the wet, smoky room, Jim's Aunt, Miss. Prothero, came downstairs and peered in at them. Jim and I waited, very quietly, to hear what she would say to them. She said the right thing, always. She looked at the three tall firemen in their shining helmets, standing among the smoke and cinders and dissolving snowballs, and she said, "Would you like anything to read?"

My thanks to you for your efforts to keep the 'pedia readable in case the firemen chose one of our articles :-) Best wishes to you and yours and happy editing in 2019. MarnetteD|Talk 07:56, 18 December 2018 (UTC)

Nadolig Llawen a Blwyddyn Newydd Dda

Martinevans123 (Santa's Hard Brexit Grotto) ... sends you ...


... warmest seasonal wishes for ...... Nadolig Llawen a Blwyddyn Newydd Dda.

Merry Christmas Baby... and hoping that you have a good New Year  !!

Merry Christmas and a Happy New Year

Merry Christmas and a Happy New Year

Hi Softlavender, I wish you and your family a very Merry Christmas
and a very Happy and Prosperous New Year,
Thanks for all your help and thanks for all your contributions to the 'pedia,

   –Davey2010 Merry Christmas / Happy New Year 14:50, 23 December 2018 (UTC)

Kalani Oceanside Retreat

Hi, you replaced 2 links with public announcements reflecting the sequence of events with a judgemental statement (ostensibly) and a link to a subdomain of a deprecated website (see https://kalani.com/ with the message: This IP address is deprecated and is no longer able to serve the requested domain.). In my view this is not following the guidelines WP:WIAE and WP:NPOV. Could you please tell your reasons for this edit? Best, --ThT (talk) 11:21, 28 December 2018 (UTC)

Military service

Why is military service non-defining as a category, as compared to where someone went to high school or college? Semper Fi! FieldMarine (talk) 14:20, 31 December 2018 (UTC)

Read WP:NONDEFINING. We commonly include place(s) of residence and schools/universities as categories as a matter of course, just as we include birthplaces and birth/death years. Military "service" should not be categorized for someone who spent nearly the entirety of their one-year so-called service in a hospital. Softlavender (talk) 01:10, 1 January 2019 (UTC)

新年快乐！

Please allow me to express my great gratitude and appreciation for your tireless contributions and insightful talk page explanations. Happy editing in the brave new 2019! Have you ever thought about being an admin? I'd be happy to nominate and support you. Tsumikiria (T/C) 00:39, 1 January 2019 (UTC)

Hi Tsumikiria, thanks for your well wishes and your vote of confidence. People have asked me to run for admin, however it's not a post I aspire to, as I prefer my role as a content person and as a non-admin opiner, etc. Thanks again and Happy New Year to you! Softlavender (talk) 01:17, 1 January 2019 (UTC)

Happy New Year, SoftL!

Happy New Year!

Some celestial fireworks to herald another year of progress for mankind and Wikipedia. All the very best , SoftL,
Kudpung กุดผึ้ง (talk) 02:18, 1 January 2019 (UTC)


Thanks Kudpung! Same to you! Wishing you a hearty, healthy, and prosperous 2019. Softlavender (talk) 03:15, 1 January 2019 (UTC)

Happy New Swedes

"No more champagne and the fireworks are through." ('sob') Martinevans123 (talk) 10:01, 1 January 2019 (UTC)

It's way too late to try to get into my good graces, Martin. Why don't you go back to ignoring some rules? Funny though, you did post this at the exact stroke of midnight here in Hawaii, so, points for that. Softlavender (talk) 10:05, 1 January 2019 (UTC)
Got a hula lulu from Honolulu, That rock-a-hula baby of mine!! Martinevans123 (talk) 11:03, 1 January 2019 (UTC)

Gwin poeth sbeislyd i chi ...

 ... gan yr hen Gymro; rwy'n gobeithio eich bod wedi cael gwyliau Nadolig gwych ac rwy'n dymuno 2019 heddychlon i chi!
That is Welsh and translates to:
Spicy hot wine for you from the old Welshman; I hope you have had a great Christmas holiday and I wish you a peaceful 2019!
Thank you for your excellent work on the 'pedia.

Sincerely, Gareth Griffith-Jones (contribs) (talk) 10:58, 1 January 2019 (UTC)
Thanks, Gareth, that's a very pleasant sentiment. Clinks to you, and have a good one! Softlavender (talk) 11:01, 1 January 2019 (UTC)
Blwyddyn Newydd Dda i chi hefyd, Gareth. Pob dymuniad gorau ar gyfer 2019! Martinevans123 (talk) 11:05, 1 January 2019 (UTC)

Happy New Year!

Softlavender,
Thanks for your contributions to Wikipedia, and a Happy New Year to you and yours! North America1000 15:32, 2 January 2019 (UTC)
– Send New Year cheer by adding {{subst:Happy New Year}} to user talk pages.
Thanks so much, NA1000! Thanks for your service to the 'pedia. Softlavender (talk) 00:47, 3 January 2019 (UTC)

Happy New Year, Softlavender!

Happy New Year!

Softlavender,
Have a prosperous, productive and enjoyable New Year, and thanks for your contributions to Wikipedia.
DBigXrayᗙ 08:54, 3 January 2019 (UTC)

   Send New Year cheer by adding {{subst:Happy New Year fireworks}} to user talk pages.

Hope the new year will bring more friendly debates and collaboration for us. Best wishes. Cheers --DBigXrayᗙ 08:54, 3 January 2019 (UTC)

Orphaned non-free image File:Tory Burch logo.jpg

⚠
⚠

Thanks for uploading File:Tory Burch logo.jpg. The image description page currently specifies that the image is non-free and may only be used on Wikipedia under a claim of fair use. However, the image is currently not used in any articles on Wikipedia. If the image was previously in an article, please go to the article and see why it was removed. You may add it back if you think that that will be useful. However, please note that images for which a replacement could be created are not acceptable for use on Wikipedia (see our policy for non-free media).

Note that any non-free images not used in any articles will be deleted after seven days, as described in section F5 of the criteria for speedy deletion. Thank you. --B-bot (talk) 17:47, 15 October 2019 (UTC)

Greetings.

Kashmiris

I just saw your revert. There was a popular sentiment on the tp in favour of doing away with that section.[4] Perhaps I should have cited it in my edit summary. FreeKashmiri (talk) 12:45, 3 February 2019 (UTC)

Parentheticals

Softlavender, please leave my edits in the JANE AUSTEN entry alone; they are correct as I wrote them as well as grammatically. Wikipedia's editors and checkers have accepted my edits as correct, and as you are not on their staff I must question your judgement in this. If you continue to revert my edits, I will be forced to report you to Wikipedia for vandalism.TonyPS214 13:43, 6 February 2019 (UTC)

(talk page stalker) @ TonyPS214. You are writing almost unbelievable horse shit here. Your opinions are crass; if you question such an esteemed contributor as User:Softlavender on grammar and punctuation in such a rude way, it is you that will be reported for disruptive editing. Back off now before it is too late! Gareth Griffith-Jones (contribs) (talk) 15:24, 6 February 2019 (UTC)
(talk page stalker) Goodness me Gareth. Are you sure that shouldn't be "horse (shit)" or "(horse) shit"?? Martinevans123 (talk) 15:43, 6 February 2019 (UTC)

Gareth Griffith-Jones

While you and I disagree about your reversions, I do not believe that you countenance the below message from user Gareth Griffith-Jones, supposedly on your behalf:

(talk page stalker) @ TonyPS214. You are writing almost unbelievable horse shit here. Your opinions are crass; if you question such an esteemed contributor as User:Softlavender on grammar and punctuation in such a rude way, it is you that will be reported for disruptive editing. Back off now before it is too late! Gareth Griffith-Jones (contribs) (talk) 15:24, 6 February 2019 (UTC)

I have already forwarded this posting to Wikipedia for possible disciplinary action.TonyPS214 16:12, 6 February 2019 (UTC)

Yes, and it has been immediately dismissed [5]. Gareth Griffith-Jones (contribs) (talk) 13:05, 7 February 2019 (UTC)
Personally, I thought it "had legs", as they say. Martinevans123 (talk) 13:27, 7 February 2019 (UTC)
Don't forget the parentheses (brackets) (Rock 'n ' roll) [6]. Gareth Griffith-Jones (contribs) (talk) 13:34, 7 February 2019 (UTC)
In the words of Theresa's biggest fan, I think there's "special place in hell" for that kind of thing. Martinevans123 (talk) 13:45, 7 February 2019 (UTC)
Isn't it appalling! Gareth Griffith-Jones (contribs) (talk) 13:48, 7 February 2019 (UTC)

Revert

Describe your revert. Why an editor should use "15:43, 4 February 2019 (UTC)" as the timestamp when the message was posted on 21:58, 14 February 2019 (UTC)? Harmanprtjhj (talk) 23:16, 14 February 2019 (UTC)

Harmanprtjhj, per WP:TPO you can't edit or remove another editor's post. If you want the editor to change the time stamp, you may ask them on their talkpage or on that thread. If you want to alert others that the message was posted at a different time and date, you can mention that below the post on that ANI thread. Softlavender (talk) 23:31, 14 February 2019 (UTC)
Thanks and done. Harmanprtjhj (talk) 23:56, 14 February 2019 (UTC)

He never disappoints, does he?

EEng 16:50, 16 February 2019 (UTC)

Causes of death and defining traits.

I noticed you revered my edit to Richard Wagner and cited WP:NONDEFINING as your justification. But I'm not sure cause of death falls under the "defining characteristic" requirement. This is partly because I don't think how somebody died can really be called a "characteristic". Or is there something I'm missing? Maximajorian Viridio (talk) 23:49, 17 February 2019 (UTC)

All categories are characteristics. Death by myocardial infarction is not a defining characteristic of Richard Wagner. Read WP:NONDEFINING. -- Softlavender (talk) 00:01, 18 February 2019 (UTC)

ANI

Hi, I am contacting you in regard to your recent close of a discussion at ANI. The editor the OP was writing about refused to engage in discussion. At quick look at their talk page and their editing history shows they have never once posted or replied on any talk page. Even though this is a content dispute, there is also this communication issue, so what other choice does the OP have but to seek redress at ANI? Please reopen the discussion that with the latest info included in my post can possibly be considered by an admin for action. Thank you - wolf 07:22, 18 February 2019 (UTC)

Well, you clearly got this one wrong. Please show a little more patience if you're going to be closing discussions, especially at ANI, and a little more cooperation with your fellow editors in the future wouldn't hurt either. Have a nice day. - wolf 04:17, 19 February 2019 (UTC)

Common name

Please help me understand. You cited WP:COMMONNAME for reverting on Gianni Schicchi. I understand that the guideline is for article titles. Not for using names in an article. I understand that we use common names for article titles. As long as the article title is Dante Alighieri, we can inform our readers about that once in a long article. You could also try to move to Dante, which I agree is the common name. What did I miss? --Gerda Arendt (talk) 08:31, 20 February 2019 (UTC)

Dante is still the English-language common name, which is why Dante goes to that article. Just as Michelangelo is the English-language common name of Michelangelo Buonarroti. Adding the surname in other articles is confusing for English readers because it is rarely used in English and merely serves to complicate what was previously clear. The goal for article writing is to make the writing as clear and easily understandable as possible for the reader. If the article were about medieval Italian writers, the surname might be useful, but it is merely confusing in an article about a 20th-century comic opera. Softlavender (talk) 08:53, 20 February 2019 (UTC)
I understand the explanation much better than the link to a guideline which doesn't even speak about that situation, - that our article name is not the common name. - Next question: while I add apostrophe and s for a possessive after the link, I would not change someone else who included those in a piped link, especially not in a FA. Why did you change? --Gerda Arendt (talk) 09:35, 20 February 2019 (UTC)
Because it was incorrect. Softlavender (talk) 10:04, 20 February 2019 (UTC)
Can you explain why, or link to a guideline? - It's easily understandable to me, as a reader. --Gerda Arendt (talk) 10:29, 20 February 2019 (UTC)
Possessive "apostrophe s"s do not belong inside a wikilink unless there is an article of that title and the construction links there. See WP:EGG. Please take this to the talkpage of the article if you want further discussion of it. Softlavender (talk) 22:58, 20 February 2019 (UTC)
Thank you for your patience with my shortcomings in English. Just to make sure I understood: do you mean a reader would think the article name is Dante's? - For my articles, it's a theoretical question, because as long as the piece by a poet has an article, I wouldn't link the author. But I'm still ready to learn. --Gerda Arendt (talk) 08:48, 21 February 2019 (UTC)
That's one of the two reasons. The other reason is, as I said, possessive "apostrophe s"s do not belong inside a wikilink of a person's name; the link should only encompass the name. Softlavender (talk) 08:59, 21 February 2019 (UTC)
I read EGG now and found nothing about it, but fine. As said above, that's what I do anyway. I'd just not change others. Clickimg on Dante's was a nice eggy surprise ;) - Thank you. Watchlist done, article work waiting. --Gerda Arendt (talk) 09:13, 21 February 2019 (UTC)

ANI

Hi Softlavender, thank you for your advise on my ANI request. I have decided to withdraw as I have no time to deal with users such as Future.Perf. I hope that one day he will understand that this is not a way to treat contributors. - Stevepeterson (talk) 03:01, 25 February 2019 (UTC)

To save us both some time

...there's a list at User:Ritchie333/Euphemisms. —Cryptic 03:12, 25 February 2019 (UTC)

  • I started commenting on these and then so how many of them there were. It looks to me like every single one of them is a speedy keep as of right now as you simply say they are "invalid" and violate "various policies and guidelines" without defining even one actual policy or guideline. No matter how obvious you belive this is you are still required to actually state what policy is being violated, otherwise you haven't actually made an argument. I can't believe this really needs to be explained to such an experienced and generally knowledgeable person such as yourself. Beeblebrox (talk) 04:27, 25 February 2019 (UTC)
So why didn't you nominate Wikipedia:Requests for Arrrrrbitration (which is one I could contemplate !voting "delete" on)? Is it because you like talking like a pirate? Ritchie333 (talk) (cont) 14:18, 25 February 2019 (UTC)

Happy First Edit Day!

Happy First Edit Day!

Have a very happy first edit anniversary!
From the Birthday Committee, CAPTAIN RAJU(T) 22:03, 1 March 2019 (UTC)
One little edit can lead to so much! Congrats S. MarnetteD|Talk 22:55, 1 March 2019 (UTC)

my edit summaries

Softlavender, you left a pretty strong statement on my talk page, please tone it down. I've added edit summaries to most pages, but do occasionally forget. As I get accustomed to doing them again, forgetting tbem will become rarer and rarer....nobody's perfect.....Pvmoutside (talk) 19:30, 10 March 2019 (UTC)

reply on user

I noticed the Hogarth as I clicked through to your talk, then a Cezanne I hadn't seen in years. They were presented as a pre-impressionist and a social realist, a sort of preface to twentieth century art, but I see them as continuing a coherent … I should stop there :P I like their work a lot!

Anyway, thanks for the reply on my concern. I didn't notice the user blanked it, I was distracted by whatever content I was working, I think it was finding a favourite author had written a paper on some creatures habits. No, it was an Author who had had a species named after himself arguing that it should be called by the traditional name, I was beside myself with joy as you might imagine (if you imagine a user with peculiar interests :).

The user is relishing the idea of combat so I am inclined to frustrate that. I'm not going to switch from researching content to responding to the account, Pvmoutside (talk · contribs), I'm considering just moving away from writing about anything in their scope, which is Animalia. The articles I work on are short, tattered, or next to empty, and have been for a decade. Fixing that, as I am sure you, requires a bit of concentration, a table full of open books, a dozen open tabs, a revert from 'confused user' who has a thing for me …! To me it is clear cut, but I am of course bias; as I have before I eventually be exhausted by the vicious gnomery of game-playing boys and seek to make myself useful elsewhere. In the meantime, I will persist with what I have been doing, the facts are far too interesting to be absent here. Thank you for attending to my concern. cygnis insignis 06:48, 11 March 2019 (UTC)

Hi Cygnis insignis, I've been off-wiki for a couple of weeks. My comment would be: It's up to you, but if the editor continues to edit problematically, it is to Wikipedia's advantage that it be reported. That way a number of other editors can review his edits and editing patterns. Softlavender (talk) 04:25, 26 March 2019 (UTC)
Hi, hope you had a nice break. I'll consider what say, but is it is clear that one or two users have been willing to ignore the activities of the user because it achieves the outcome they want without getting their hands dirty. My grievance is about actions undertaken during my long absence, and it has not played out well for those who have objected before. I'm going to play to my strengths, and that is not researching another user and providing evidence in a forum. These concerns will be sorted out eventually, but I have found it useful to use you as a sounding board and have been able to mostly refocus on what I love doing here. cygnis insignis 09:38, 26 March 2019 (UTC)

Portals

While I share your view that we don't need any of the automated new portals, I don't think we should throw out all. Portal Germany has viewers, and changes almost daily. --Gerda Arendt (talk) 18:04, 27 March 2019 (UTC)

The edit you reverted

FYI, the edit you reverted didn't need to be reverted. What my edit did was combine a duplicate reference into 1, thus it named the reference and reused it. If you look at the history of the page you'll see what my edit was. It was not a 'removal of a reference without consensus' as you wrote. --Level C (talk) 23:25, 29 March 2019 (UTC)

Ah, I see, Level C. The main problem is that you removed 531 bytes without the slightest explanation. Please explain all of your edits going forward. Mass unexplained edits such as you made are why people end up getting AWB rights removed. Softlavender (talk) 23:33, 29 March 2019 (UTC)
Would 336 edits in 12 hours, where I've added a summary to most be considered "mass edits"? --Level C (talk) 23:52, 29 March 2019 (UTC)
Mass edit means the edit where you changed hundreds of things, and removed 531 bytes, and left the edit summary "typo(s) fixed: Europe’s → Europe's": [7]. -- Softlavender (talk) 00:03, 30 March 2019 (UTC)
.. I checked my stats and my edit summaries did go from 100% each month to 94.5%. I'll add them ... --Level C (talk) 00:11, 30 March 2019 (UTC)
This unexplained edit took the closing tag off of a table and made the rest of the article into a table, might want to check which AWB setting caused that. Kees08 (Talk) 00:17, 30 March 2019 (UTC)
It wasn't an AWB setting. I actually edited that myself 'cause I thought it was an extra } .. That was my error.- I should have previewed the edit. --Level C (talk) 00:47, 30 March 2019 (UTC)

WP:AFD

An article you created or have contributed to has been nominated for deletion
Hello!
Click the image for an important message.
Like, it's April Fools' Day today, you know?
So...
 

Keep

 

on

Waaaaaah! Ya got me. :) Softlavender (talk) 22:52, 1 April 2019 (UTC)
I guess it worked... North America1000 00:11, 2 April 2019 (UTC)

WP:BRD

Please remember that in WP:BRD, you must Wikipedia:Revert only when necessary as "Reverting tends to be hostile, making editing Wikipedia unpleasant." Also, read up on the bad reasons to revert. Krimuk2.0 (talk) 11:00, 6 April 2019 (UTC)

April 2019

Stop icon

Your recent editing history at Jack Lowden shows that you are currently engaged in an edit war; that means that you are repeatedly changing content back to how you think it should be, when you have seen that other editors disagree. To resolve the content dispute, please do not revert or change the edits of others when you are reverted. Instead of reverting, please use the talk page to work toward making a version that represents consensus among editors. The best practice at this stage is to discuss, not edit-war. See BRD for how this is done. If discussions reach an impasse, you can then post a request for help at a relevant noticeboard or seek dispute resolution. In some cases, you may wish to request temporary page protection.

Being involved in an edit war can result in you being blocked from editing—especially if you violate the three-revert rule, which states that an editor must not perform more than three reverts on a single page within a 24-hour period. Undoing another editor's work—whether in whole or in part, whether involving the same or different material each time—counts as a revert. Also keep in mind that while violating the three-revert rule often leads to a block, you can still be blocked for edit warring—even if you don't violate the three-revert rule—should your behavior indicate that you intend to continue reverting repeatedly. Krimuk2.0 (talk) 11:07, 6 April 2019 (UTC)

Notice of edit warring noticeboard discussion

Information icon Hello. This message is being sent to inform you that there is currently a discussion involving you at Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Edit warring regarding a possible violation of Wikipedia's policy on edit warring. The thread is Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Edit warring#User:Softlavender reported by User:Krimuk2.0 (Result: ). Thank you. Krimuk2.0 (talk) 11:07, 6 April 2019 (UTC)

Requested move: Chairman → Chair (officer)

Hello, there is an RM discussion you may be interested in since you have participated in the past:

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Talk:Chairman#Requested_move_22_March_2019

Any input would be appreciated. Fyunck(click) (talk) 03:41, 16 April 2019 (UTC)

Made a note on admin noticeboard about you

It says to inform the user in question therefore I am leaving this note. No hostility is intended, merely the ingretity of the kitchen sink page. Cardbottleenvelope (talk) 16:24, 25 May 2019 (UTC)

Na Hoku Hanohano Awards

Aloha, I'm working with the Hawaii Academy right now for the change in the verbiage of the Na Hoku Awards. They are moving away from using any definitions with "GRAMMY" or "GRAMMYS" in it. They have sent press releases already out to all news outlets. If you have any question you can contact Pali the HARA President directly through the Hara website. Nahokuhanohano.org Mahalo for understanding. Allanbcool (talk) 13:10, 27 May 2019 (UTC) Please See Na Hoku Hanohano Awards

Hi Allanbcool, you need to declare your conflict of interest on the talkpage of the article and on your userpage. Additionally, on Wikipedia, we go by what reliable independent sources, say, not what the subject of the wiki article says. Please do not remove cited material from the article. Softlavender (talk) 00:42, 28 May 2019 (UTC)

Thanks for the fast reply. Can you please help me to create the talk page so we can proceed to move in the right direction. I'm a more newer editor and want to make sure it is all set up correctly out the gate. Allanbcool (talk) 04:01, 28 May 2019 (UTC)

My apologies.

In rolling back an uncalled-for revert (IMO, of course) with its apparently obligatory personal attack in the edit summary, I also nuked a reply. Qwirkle (talk) 01:20, 28 May 2019 (UTC)

"Notice of Fair Warning" on Gab's "Talk" Page

I'm trying to get a feel for what protocol is, and why things are done certain ways. Why did you post X-Editor's "warning" on the Gab talk page, instead of his own Talk page? I assume it's either A) Because that's how it's done, or B) What you were saying to him applies to others, or C) Both. If it's B or C, I have questions, particularly with regard to "quoting Torba", because that's been a pending issue with me for several weeks now, i.e. is there some kind of ban on quoting Torba, or was it X-Editor's edits-specific, etc... I have other questions besides this re: Wikipedia policy and how it applies to the article on Gab.Tym Whittier (talk) 05:55, 5 June 2019 (UTC)

I felt like it. Softlavender (talk) 23:12, 5 June 2019 (UTC)

Maria Callas article

I fear we are having some difficulty in this article. It appears you have an attachment to the article that precludes other editors from improving it. If this continues we should call upon the services of Wikipedia to intervene so the article can be brought into proper encyclopedia standards. I mean no disrespect to you, but some of the changes you are making show a lacking in proper training and experience in writing. For example, one never writes "in order to" when referencing something that was done for a purpose. That is taught in the first year of a writer's education. The words "in order" are unnecessary and meaningless, which is why they are considered improper style. I realize not every Wikipedia editor can be a professional editor, but we must always try to adhere to the rules of English grammar and style. I assure you, that is my only interest in this or any other Wikipedia article. Just because something has been incorrect for more than a decade is no reason to allow it to continue. I would like to encourage you to work with me in removing writing that has improper grammar and style instead of claiming some type of ownership over the article. Please remember that we are colleagues in our efforts here, not adversaries. All the best to you. MarydaleEd (talk) 00:54, 6 June 2019 (UTC)

Please keep all discussion of article content on the talkpage of the article, rather than on user talkpages. Softlavender (talk) 01:01, 6 June 2019 (UTC)

It's completely off-topic for ANI...

...so bringing it here.

As for your bringing up my previous IBANs -- I have to say, I'm disappointed. You know quite well that all but the two most recent (which were imposed under very questionable circumstances) were put in place at my request to protect me from one-way hounding (they were two-way basically because I chose to minimize drama by taking advantage of the fact that the other party in each case also claimed they wanted a two-way IBAN, and not having to convince the peanut gallery at ANI that a one-way sanction is required is always the best way to prevent drama): and the other parties to virtually all of them have long since left the project because they kept violating the bans! If you don't agree with me, User:Curly Turkey and everyone else (pinging CT since you, he and I have a positive and collaborative history and I'd really like to hear his take on what you wrote) regarding the Pearl Harbour stuff, the copyvio, and all the rest, that's fine -- you're entitled to your opinion -- but bringing up other unrelated sanctions as though they had been placed on me for disruption on my part is something only the very worst type of Wikipedia editors do, and I seriously expected better from you.

In fact I still do. I consider you a friend a great Wikipedian, and I'm perfectly willing to talk this out with you to figure out what I might have done to provoke that remark.

Hijiri 88 (聖やや) 04:25, 7 June 2019 (UTC)

WIR twitter

Just wanted to let you know that the tweet you refer to in your ARC statement has been deleted. Risker (talk) 02:12, 15 June 2019 (UTC)

I'm well aware that it was deleted two hours after it was reported at WP:FRAM. -- Softlavender (talk) 02:32, 15 June 2019 (UTC)

I have filed a statement on the same topic as you: Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Case#Statement by Starship.paint. starship.paint (talk) 03:33, 15 June 2019 (UTC)

Interesting, Starship.paint, thanks for letting me know. Also, in two of those tweets (including the one recently deleted), the WiR account said "[I'm] ashamed of them" (the community questioning the unilateral ban/desysop). Softlavender (talk) 03:43, 15 June 2019 (UTC)
Updated. starship.paint (talk) 03:45, 15 June 2019 (UTC)

Hi Softlavender. In response to this incident, WP:WPWIR are working on new social media principles at Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Women in Red/Outreach/Social media. They are looking for constructive criticism and constructive discussion - if you can provide that. starship.paint (talk) 04:42, 28 June 2019 (UTC)

WJBscribe Arbitration Case Request

Hi Softlavender, I'm Cameron11598 and I am one of the Arbitration Committee Clerks. At the direction of the committee I've removed part of your statement that referencing WP:WikiProject Women in Red as the case request is focused on the reversal of office actions. Please note this has been done as a clerk action and these statements should not be re-added nor my action reversed without prior approval of an Arbitration Committee Clerk or an Arbitrator. For the Arbitration Committee --Cameron11598 (Talk) 17:01, 15 June 2019 (UTC)

Gab: Extension vs. Website

I agree with your focus on "readability", however there is meaning that I also think needs to be included. In case you don't know, Dissenter is both website and "extension", and they are two very different things. Both exist, and both should be mentioned as if they exist separately. The extension is an add-on that drops a dialogue box on top of whatever web page you happen to be looking at. This is where the term "overlay" comes from (although it is technically inaccurate; it's the word we have from RS). In contrast, the website is simply that. A standalone website with a URL that you can browse to and post comments there. I assume the website and the extension share a common database, as comments made via website appear to those using the extension, and vice versa. I'm not as concerned with HOW it's said, and will trust your wordsmithing skills and judgement, however I would like the article to make reference to both as if they are two different things. Failing to do this might create the impression that (for example) when "bad things" happen to the extension (being booted out of Google Play Store, or whatever), something "bad" happens to the website also. Both exist, more or less, independent of each other.Tym Whittier (talk) 20:36, 17 June 2019 (UTC)

Sorry, I take all this back. I was reading the history of the edits and not the actual article. The article says what I want to say perfect. You can delete this. I would, but don't know if that's allowed.Tym Whittier (talk) 20:41, 17 June 2019 (UTC)
No problem; I'll just leave it so my deletion doesn't look odd, and probably move it to archive soon. Softlavender (talk) 22:49, 18 June 2019 (UTC)

WP:CEN is now open!

To all interested parties: Now that it has a proper shortcut, the current events noticeboard has now officially opened for discussion!

WP:CEN came about as an idea I explored through a request for comment that closed last March. Recent research has re-opened the debate on Wikipedia's role in a changing faster-paced internet. Questions of WP:NOTNEWS and WP:Recentism are still floating around. That being said, there are still plenty of articles to write and hopefully this noticeboard can positively contribute to that critical process.

Thank you for your participation in the RFC, and I hope to see you at WP:CEN soon! –MJL ‐Talk‐☖ 19:10, 29 June 2019 (UTC)

Delivered by MediaWiki message delivery (talk) at 19:34, 29 June 2019 (UTC) on behalf of DannyS712 (talk)

Consultation on "Good Writing"

[[8]] "Some authors think that World War II could have ended earlier if Marshall had had his way; others think that such an invasion would have meant utter failure." This kind of thing drives me crazy. Assuming this isn't considered "good writing", is there some formula or method to fix it so that no intended meaning is lost? My first thought was "...if Marshall had been allowed to have...", but that introduces the idea that someone or something was stopping him. I could research the whole thing, but I'd rather just plug & play alternate language that doesn't require the Editor to learn the full context before tweaking things, if possible.Tym Whittier (talk) 01:14, 1 July 2019 (UTC)

That wording is correct; "had had" is the past perfect tense of "have". Softlavender (talk) 21:29, 7 July 2019 (UTC)

You've got mail

Hello, Softlavender. Please check your email; you've got mail!
It may take a few minutes from the time the email is sent for it to show up in your inbox. You can remove this notice at any time by removing the {{You've got mail}} or {{ygm}} template. Tsu*miki*⧸ 🌉 08:53, 8 July 2019 (UTC)

My blunder

Sorry, I was tired. But I can't fix it from my iPad, or at least I know from bitter experience that I'm likely to make more of s mess, and won't be home for several hours. Any chance you can fix it for me with an edit summary saying I asked you to fix it? If you could, that would be great. Doug Weller talk 08:49, 22 July 2019 (UTC)

Roger that, D. Will do now. Softlavender (talk) 09:11, 22 July 2019 (UTC)

AN/I

Information icon There is currently a discussion at Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents regarding an issue with which you may have been involved. 69.120.40.196 (talk) 01:08, 4 August 2019 (UTC)

The Signpost: 24 December 2018

* Read this Signpost in full * Single-page * Unsubscribe * MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 13:36, 24 December 2018 (UTC)

2019


Die Zeit, die Tag und Jahre macht

Happy 2019

begin it with music and memories

Not too late, I hope ;) --Gerda Arendt (talk) 13:36, 13 January 2019 (UTC)

Thanks, Gerda! That's very beautiful. Softlavender (talk) 22:52, 14 January 2019 (UTC)

The Signpost: 31 January 2019

* Read this Signpost in full * Single-page * Unsubscribe * MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 06:50, 31 January 2019 (UTC)

Topic ban listing

You may possibly find the topic ban listed at WP:Editing restrictions, but they don't always get listed. Unless the editor successfully appealed the TBan on AN (or ANI), it's still in effect.

Thanks. I checked, but I don't see it listed at all. Are rescinded topic bans usually deleted from the list? --Calton | Talk 05:24, 2 February 2019 (UTC)

Not if they were never listed there in the first place, which would not be entirely surprising for an admin-applied TBan. Softlavender (talk) 05:27, 2 February 2019 (UTC)
Calton, maybe tell me by e-mail who it is? Bishonen | talk 06:04, 2 February 2019 (UTC).

The Signpost: 28 February 2019

* Read this Signpost in full * Single-page * Unsubscribe * MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 11:16, 28 February 2019 (UTC)

The Signpost: 31 March 2019

News, reports and features from the English Wikipedia's weekly journal about Wikipedia and Wikimedia

The Signpost: 31 May 2019

* Read this Signpost in full * Single-page * Unsubscribe * MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 02:12, 31 May 2019 (UTC)

The June 2019 Signpost is out!

* Read this Signpost in full * Single-page * Unsubscribe * MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 15:53, 30 June 2019 (UTC)

The Signpost: 31 July 2019

* Read this Signpost in full * Single-page * Unsubscribe * MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 16:18, 31 July 2019 (UTC)

Daily Mail

I'd noticed the IP's many edits on Recent Changes, but he/she cited this RFC which says in the closing There are multiple thousands of existing citations to the Daily Mail. Volunteers are encouraged to review them, and remove/replace them as appropriate. so I didn't challenge the removals. Was I wrong to not revert? Schazjmd (talk) 01:03, 4 August 2019 (UTC)

Hi Schazjmd. Neutral statements of incontrovertible relevant fact(s) should not be removed simply because they are cited to the DM. This however has been what this IP is deliberately doing, and he has been warned about it eight times so far: [9]. Clear-cut gossip and irrelevant trivia is fine to remove, but the user is mostly removing neutral statements of incontrovertible relevant facts, quite deliberately. If they continue they will be reported to administrators and blocked from editing. Softlavender (talk) 01:09, 4 August 2019 (UTC)
Softlavender, thanks for taking the time to clarify it for me, I appreciate it. Schazjmd (talk) 01:12, 4 August 2019 (UTC)
Schazjmd, Softlavender is wrong. "Neutral statements of incontrovertible relevant facts" that are cited to the Daily Mail should have the citation replaced if possible, and if not the citation to the Daily Mail should be replaced with a Citation Needed tag. "The use of the Daily Mail as a reference is generally prohibited." Generally prohibited means generally prohibited. Here is the result of the RfC:
"Consensus has determined that the Daily Mail (including its online version, dailymail.co.uk) is generally unreliable, and its use as a reference is to be generally prohibited, especially when other more reliable sources exist. As a result, the Daily Mail should not be used for determining notability, nor should it be used as a source in articles. An edit filter should be put in place going forward to warn editors attempting to use the Daily Mail as a reference.
The general themes of the support !votes centred on the Daily Mail’s reputation for poor fact checking, sensationalism, and flat-out fabrication. Examples were provided to back up these claims. The oppose !votes made three main arguments:
The Daily Mail is actually reliable for some subjects. This appears to have been adequately addressed by the support !voters: if there are topics where it might be a reliable source, then better sources (without its disadvantages) should also exist and can be used instead.
The Daily Mail may have been more reliable historically, and it could make sense to cite it as a primary source if it is the subject of discussion. These seem to be good points, but should come up very rarely. Editors are encouraged to discuss with each other and apply common sense in these cases.
Singling out one source does not deal with the other poor sources that are currently permitted. This point is outside the scope of this RFC, which concerns only the Daily Mail. However, the discussion is closed without prejudice towards future discussions on such sources.
There are multiple thousands of existing citations to the Daily Mail. Volunteers are encouraged to review them, and remove/replace them as appropriate." --WP:DAILYMAIL
Pleased note the last sentence. --Guy Macon (talk) 14:37, 7 August 2019 (UTC)
Guy Macon, thanks, and sorry if I'm being dense but it sounds like you and Softlavender are saying the same thing. Softlavender says leave the content (not addressing the citation), and you're saying replace the citation with a better one or CN (not addressing the content). So the IP who was removing (not replacing) every DM citation and all of the content around it was applying that RFC incorrectly. No? Schazjmd (talk) 14:47, 7 August 2019 (UTC)
Yes. We are saying the same thing about content. The IP was blocked for personal attacks and general asshattery, but he would have most likely been blocked for removing content that was neutral statements of incontrovertible relevant facts. That sort of content should stay, with the DM citation removed. Dubious content should be removed along with the DM citation. But either way the DM citation should be removed. In edits such as this one[10] Softlavender restored the content and the DM citation. The RfC is clear; the citation should not have been restored. --Guy Macon (talk) 15:16, 7 August 2019 (UTC)
Guy Macon and Softlavender, thank you both for your patience. Now I'll know how to deal with any similar edits in the future. I appreciate it. Schazjmd (talk) 15:29, 7 August 2019 (UTC)

The Signpost: 30 April 2019

* Read this Signpost in full * Single-page * Unsubscribe * MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 17:37, 30 April 2019 (UTC)

Editing your sandbox

Greetings, Softlavender. I edited your sandbox as part of a campaign to remove lint errors from Wikipedia. For more on why this important, see Wikipedia:Linter. I believe my changes preserved the appearance exactly and removed all lint errors. Is there a problem? —Anomalocaris (talk) 01:58, 7 August 2019 (UTC)

Please do not edit my sandbox without my permission. Softlavender (talk) 01:59, 7 August 2019 (UTC)
OK, I won't edit your sandbox without permission. Please be aware that Self-closed tags is a high priority lint error, and right now, in all of English Wikipedia, there is only one item with this error: User:Softlavender/sandbox. The self-closed <p/> is not correct markup and does nothing. If you want a line break at that point in the wikitext, use </p><p>. If you want the text to continue on the same line, remove the self-closed tag. User:Softlavender/sandbox also has Obsolete HTML tags and Missing end tag lint errors, but these are considered low priority lint errors. It would be great if you fix the self-closed tag; the other lint errors don't matter much. Cheers! —Anomalocaris (talk) 07:03, 7 August 2019 (UTC)
OK, I've restored your changes. Softlavender (talk) 08:57, 7 August 2019 (UTC)
Thanks! —Anomalocaris (talk) 17:04, 7 August 2019 (UTC)

Adminship

Hello. Is there a good reason why this is a redlink? Wikipedia:Requests for adminship/Softlavender --Dweller (talk) Become old fashioned! 09:41, 7 August 2019 (UTC)

Very kind of you, Dweller! I don't like responsibility, and I like my function on Wikipedia as a content creator and a commentator, and I don't like tools and such. I'm happier being a civilian, really. I can be more myself that way. Thanks for the vote of confidence, however! Softlavender (talk) 09:47, 7 August 2019 (UTC)
OK. I've seen you around and whilst I'm really quite terrible at remember 'who done what' over a longer period, I have seen you been kind and clueful and your username is distinctive enough that I have an overwhelmingly positive reaction when I see it. --Dweller (talk) Become old fashioned! 10:27, 7 August 2019 (UTC)

Question

Hope you are doing well, I recently noticed you posted a warning on my talk page regarding vandalism. In a desire to learn from this experience, what did I do wrong that was presumed as vandalism, and does this have anything to do with using Wikipedia editing as a classroom tool? — Preceding unsigned comment added by Chickensarebleepssorryuncle (talk • contribs) 22:54, 17 August 2019 (UTC)

My error; I thought this edit was vandalism but it was only the odd and bizarrely wordy name of the image file. You may remove my warning. Softlavender (talk) 23:08, 17 August 2019 (UTC)

Your support for my ban

Hi, you have supported my ban however would we be able to discuss your reasonings and both sides on here so we can see each other’s sides in a civil way thanks. Wiki Facts fixer (talk) 19:58, 19 August 2019 (UTC)

Questions about Expanding Dance in India articles

Hi again, I noticed that you made three comments on my talk page today. I am trying to expand Dance in India articles, where the article boxes do not reflect current articles. Also, some of these articles have more relevant information in foreign language articles (i.e. Hindi, Tamil, Tulu, Kannada, Bengali, Assamese, etc.) that should be translated by editors that are more fluent in the articles' respective languages. Many of the pages also are lacking in descriptive information that should be expanded by those familiar with it, warranting expand language tags, stub tags, and the like. Many of the articles also lack images or descriptive boxes that many similar Dance in India articles have. I will make sure to fill out the description of edits field in the future. What is the best method expand the Dance in India articles properly, without causing unintended disruption? Thank you for all your help, and sorry for any inconveniences I may have caused! Chickensarebleepssorryuncle (talk) 17:11, 21 August 2019 (UTC)

Another question- This is my first month editing, and I am a bit unfamiliar with the technical terms you left on my talk page. What are those in layman's terms? Thank you so much! Chickensarebleepssorryuncle (talk) 21:58, 21 August 2019 (UTC)

Being a Language Arts teacher, the last thing I want to cause is disruption, do most of my edits have to be on an informational basis, and are expanding dance in India hyperlinks, photos, and requesting to expand such articles, whether it be there is no longer article or there is a larger article in a different language considered contributions or disruptions?

For example, this article, has information in its respective article on Tulu Wikipedia, and its article on Kannada Wikipedia, that cannot be found on its English counterpart. What would you suggest my best course of action be to have those more familiar with the languages expand the English article? Chickensarebleepssorryuncle (talk) 16:52, 22 August 2019 (UTC)

Question about Adding and Updating Images and Infoboxes

Hey, am I permitted to add or update images? I know that you mentioned when you requested me to stop tagging articles for expansion and to change my editing habits, and what about adding Infoboxes to pages that don't have one? — Preceding unsigned comment added by Chickensarebleepssorryuncle (talk • contribs) 17:15, 22 August 2019 (UTC)

Proposed deletion of File:FantasiaCDcover.jpg

Notice

The file File:FantasiaCDcover.jpg has been proposed for deletion because of the following concern:

Non-free cover art being used in a decorative manner in The Sorcerer's Apprentice (Dukas)#Fantasia. If this was being used for primary identification purposes in a stand-alone article about the album itself, it would almost certainly be fine per item 2 of WP:NFCI. Non-free use of album cover art in other articles or in other ways, however, tends to require a much stronger justification per WP:NFC#cite_note-3 and there is no real sourced critical commentary discussing the cover itself in the "Fantasia" section to provide the context for non-free use required by NFCC#8. The non-free use of soundtrack album cover art is almost always not considered acceptable in subsections about the corresponding films themselves per WP:FILMSCORE, and the same rationale can be applied to this type of non-free use at all. Mentioning the album by name and even discussing the music contained therein is not in and of itself a sufficient justification for the non-free use of the album's cover art.

While all constructive contributions to Wikipedia are appreciated, pages may be deleted for any of several reasons.

You may prevent the proposed deletion by removing the {{proposed deletion/dated files}} notice, but please explain why in your edit summary or on the file's talk page.

Please consider addressing the issues raised. Removing {{proposed deletion/dated files}} will stop the proposed deletion process, but other deletion processes exist. In particular, the speedy deletion process can result in deletion without discussion, and files for discussion allows discussion to reach consensus for deletion. -- Marchjuly (talk) 02:06, 30 August 2019 (UTC)

The Signpost: 30 August 2019

* Read this Signpost in full * Single-page * Unsubscribe * MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 23:42, 30 August 2019 (UTC)

2019 Arbitration Committee pre-election RfC

A request for comment is now open to provide an opportunity to amend the structure, rules, and procedures of the 2019 English Wikipedia Arbitration Committee election and resolve any issues not covered by existing rules. You are receiving this message because you were listed as a user who would like to be notified when the 2019 RfC begins. MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 21:52, 31 August 2019 (UTC)

Your WP:OWN editing.

Try being a more constructive editor in future and stop your WP:OWN issues. Many of my edits were improvements and your mass reverting of all of them is very disruptive and disturbing. Your "warning" is also highly hypocritical. Afterwriting (talk) 04:37, 7 September 2019 (UTC)

Afterwriting, as my second edit summary indicated [11], I did not mass revert all of your edits. It is possible to click "undo" and at the same time, before clicking "Publish", to edit the wikitext to retain some changes, which is what I did. See the net difference, which retained some of your edits [12]. -- Softlavender (talk) 04:53, 7 September 2019 (UTC)

Hm?

Here I was correcting my own technical error in accidentally sending the same message twice. I sent the message that I removed. Kevin (aka L235 · t · c) 05:40, 7 September 2019 (UTC)

That's why edit summaries are important, Kevin. Softlavender (talk) 05:49, 7 September 2019 (UTC)

Notice of noticeboard discussion

Information icon There is currently a discussion at Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard regarding an issue with which you may have been involved. Thank you. 4meter4 (talk) 21:38, 18 September 2019 (UTC)

On a different, but related, note could I ask that you mark pages that you nominate for deletion as reviewed? Thanks and best, Barkeep49 (talk) 04:35, 19 September 2019 (UTC)

The Signpost: 30 September 2019

* Read this Signpost in full * Single-page * Unsubscribe * MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 11:07, 30 September 2019 (UTC)

On Westernness

Hello.
We likely never intersected – I was out of touch with en.Wikipedia when you edited actively, and also due to your humanitarian interests. Some of your metapedian contributions show you as one of persons who uphold a distinct First-World Western character of the English Wikipedia (including, but not limited to, the European norms of honor). But this character relies on (numerical) dominance of Westerners, and demography of English-speaking peoples makes this condition not sustainable. Advancement of Internet services to certain countries (previously stricken with poverty) gradually undermines the Western superiority in numbers. Hence the community of en.Wikipedia perfectly may become a multicultural sludge full of sycophancy (like one of Wikimedia Commons) in the future. IMHO some coordinated action aimed to deter conmen, sycophants, and bigots from obtaining elevated privileges could at least delay (if not avert) the impeding multicultural takeover of the site.

I know few trusted people here, largely due to my years-long wikibreak. And very few of them are active metapedically. That’s why your assistance could be valuable. Incnis Mrsi (talk) 08:39, 22 October 2019 (UTC)

DYK for Raymond Arritt

PanydThe muffin is not subtle 00:01, 12 January 2019 (UTC)

The Signpost: 31 October 2019

* Read this Signpost in full * Single-page * Unsubscribe * MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 16:12, 31 October 2019 (UTC)

A survey to improve the community consultation outreach process

Hello!

The Wikimedia Foundation is seeking to improve the community consultation outreach process for Foundation policies, and we are interested in why you didn't participate in a recent consultation that followed a community discussion you’ve been part of.

Please fill out this short survey to help us improve our community consultation process for the future. It should only take about three minutes.

The privacy policy for this survey is here. This survey is a one-off request from us related to this unique topic.

Thank you for your participation, Kbrown (WMF) 10:45, 13 November 2019 (UTC)

ArbCom 2019 election voter message

Hello! Voting in the 2019 Arbitration Committee elections is now open until 23:59 on Monday, 2 December 2019. All eligible users are allowed to vote. Users with alternate accounts may only vote once.

The Arbitration Committee is the panel of editors responsible for conducting the Wikipedia arbitration process. It has the authority to impose binding solutions to disputes between editors, primarily for serious conduct disputes the community has been unable to resolve. This includes the authority to impose site bans, topic bans, editing restrictions, and other measures needed to maintain our editing environment. The arbitration policy describes the Committee's roles and responsibilities in greater detail.

If you wish to participate in the 2019 election, please review the candidates and submit your choices on the voting page. If you no longer wish to receive these messages, you may add {{NoACEMM}} to your user talk page. MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 00:09, 19 November 2019 (UTC)

The Signpost: 29 November 2019

* Read this Signpost in full * Single-page * Unsubscribe * MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 22:24, 29 November 2019 (UTC)

Merry Christmas

File:Christmas tree in field.jpg Merry Christmas Softlavender

Hi Softlavender, I wish you and your family a very Merry Christmas
and a very happy and prosperous New Year,
Thanks for all your contributions to Wikipedia this past year, like this tree, you are a light shining in the darkness.
Onel5969 TT me 12:07, 22 December 2019 (UTC)

The Signpost: 27 December 2019

* Read this Signpost in full * Single-page * Unsubscribe * MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 12:38, 27 December 2019 (UTC)

Some bubble tea for you!

Hope everything's OK, Softlander. ——SN54129 16:22, 13 December 2019 (UTC)

Thanks for the bubble tea, Serial Number 54129! Softlavender (talk) 10:00, 25 January 2020 (UTC)

Happy holidays!

Hi SoftL! Haven't seen you around for a full 3 months. I hope all is well and I send you the warmest wishes for this seasonal occasion, whichever you celebrate - or don't, while I swelter at 27℃ (80.6℉), and peace and prosperity for 2020.
Kudpung กุดผึ้ง (talk) 10:46, 24 December 2019 (UTC)
Thanks very much for the warm wishes, Kudpung. It seems to have slipped your mind however that I am at nearly exactly the same latitude as you. :) It is quite balmy here as well. Cheers and best wishes, Softlavender (talk) 10:06, 25 January 2020 (UTC)

Peace Dove

Peace is a state of balance and understanding in yourself and between others, where respect is gained by the acceptance of differences, tolerance persists, conflicts are resolved through dialog, peoples rights are respected and their voices are heard, and everyone is at their highest point of serenity without social tension. Happy Holidays to you and yours. ―Buster7 ☎ 13:54, 24 December 2019 (UTC)
Thanks Buster7! Softlavender (talk) 10:07, 25 January 2020 (UTC)

Season's Greetings

Hello there! Shearonink (talk) wishes you & yours the very best of the season!

Whether you celebrate Christmas, Diwali, Hanukkah, Kwanzaa,
Festivus (for the rest of us!) or even the Saturnalia,
here's to
hoping your holiday time is wonderful
and that the New Year will be an improvement upon the old.
CHEERS!

Share these holiday wishes by adding {{subst:User:Shearonink/Holiday}} ~~~~ to your friends' talk pages.
Belated thanks, Shearonink! I've been away and just got this message. Softlavender (talk) 10:09, 25 January 2020 (UTC)

Joyous Season

I wish that you may have a very Happy Holiday! Whether you celebrate Christmas, Hanukkah, Kwanzaa, Hogmanay, Festivus or your hemisphere's Solstice, this is a special time of year for almost everyone! May the New Year provide you joy and fulfillment! Thanks for everything you do here. Sad to see you aren't around much right now, but I hope you see this all the same.
— Coffee // have a ☕️ // beans // 10:13, 25 December 2019 (UTC)

Spread the holiday cheer by adding {{subst:User:Coffee/Holidays}} to your fellow editors' talk pages.

Belated thanks, Coffee! Softlavender (talk) 10:10, 25 January 2020 (UTC)

                                                 Happy holidays

Happy New Year!
Softlavender,
Have a great 2020 and thanks for your continued contributions to Wikipedia.

   – 2020 is a leap year – news article.
   – Background color is Classic Blue (#0F4C81), Pantone's 2020 Color of the year

Send New Year cheer by adding {{subst:Happy New Year 2020}} to user talk pages.

– North America1000 18:42, 31 December 2019 (UTC)


Awesome post, Northamerica1000! Thanks very much and same to you. Softlavender (talk) 10:11, 25 January 2020 (UTC)

Be well at Christmas

Have a WikiChristmas and a PediaNewYear

Be well. Keep well. Have a lovely Christmas. SilkTork (talk) 17:14, 24 December 2019 (UTC)

Belated thanks, SilkTork! I hope you have been behaving yourself. :) Softlavender (talk) 10:08, 25 January 2020 (UTC)
I do try, but there's always someone who thinks I've been naughty: [13] ;-). SilkTork (talk) 13:42, 25 January 2020 (UTC)

Hi

Hi Softlavender, I was reading through some archives recently, spotted your username, and realised that I hadn't seen it around in a while. I don't think we've ever interacted, but I was used to seeing your name in all the usual places, usually preceded by a lot of insight and good judgment. I hope everything is OK at your end, and that I'll see you back at some point - your input is missed. Happy new year etc., GirthSummit (blether) 18:50, 11 January 2020 (UTC)

Hi Girth Summit, thanks for the kind message. I got involved in a number of classes and let my wiki participation slide. Good to see y'all haven't torn the place to shreds in my absence. I hope to be around more regularly. Softlavender (talk) 10:15, 25 January 2020 (UTC)
Softlavender, yay - I'm glad all is well, looking forward to seeing you around again. GirthSummit (blether) 10:38, 25 January 2020 (UTC)

I was just thinking of this yesterday, about not seeing you around anymore. I had a little trouble to remember your nickname (I initially tried Bluelavender). I also hope everything is well and to eventually see you around again. —PaleoNeonate – 21:53, 15 January 2020 (UTC)

LOL thanks very much, PaleoNeonate! Things are fine: I got busy and distracted and then wiki started to seem superfluous. Hope to be back more now. Thanks again. Softlavender (talk) 10:15, 25 January 2020 (UTC)
I understand that and also do what I can when I can, being more busy recently. I'm glad to know you're doing good, —PaleoNeonate – 15:14, 25 January 2020 (UTC)

Cheers

Damon Runyon's short story "Dancing Dan's Christmas" is a fun read if you have the time. Right from the start it extols the virtues of the hot Tom and Jerry

This hot Tom and Jerry is an old-time drink that is once used by one and all in this country to celebrate Christmas with, and in fact it is once so popular that many people think Christmas is invented only to furnish an excuse for hot Tom and Jerry, although of course this is by no means true.

No matter what concoction is your favorite to imbibe during this festive season I would like to toast you with it and to thank you for all your work here at the 'pedia this past year. Best wishes for your 2020 as well Softlavender. MarnetteD|Talk 22:30, 16 December 2019 (UTC)


Thanks MarnetteD! I'll check it out. A few years ago I read the two Damon Runyon short stories that Guys and Dolls is based on. They were delightful. Thanks again. Softlavender (talk) 10:02, 25 January 2020 (UTC)
OK I just read the story, M! That was excellent; thanks so much for sharing it! I will remember this in future Christmas seasons as something to enjoy and share. Cheers, Softlavender (talk) 11:13, 25 January 2020 (UTC)
I'm glad you liked it S. If I could get the accent right I'd read it aloud the way I do A Child's Christmas in Wales :-) MarnetteD|Talk 17:48, 25 January 2020 (UTC)
Yeah, M, I read it to myself in Frank Sinatra's Nathan Detroit voice. That was the only way I could make sense of the verb tenses and the other Runyonisms. :) Softlavender (talk) 21:57, 25 January 2020 (UTC)

The Signpost: 27 January 2020

* Read this Signpost in full * Single-page * Unsubscribe * MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 02:10, 27 January 2020 (UTC)

Your edit to Exploring_Music

@Softlavender: I see you're the one with the English degree, so I won't argue, but I'll still point out: It's foul that "FedExing" is recognized as a verb and it's especially absurd when one considers all the other verbs that would function better. Liberty5651 (talk) 23:41, 11 February 2020 (UTC)

[14], [15], [16]. -- Softlavender (talk) 04:55, 12 February 2020 (UTC)
[17] Liberty5651 (talk) 20:47, 14 February 2020 (UTC)

Infobox photo discussion

Hi. Can you offer your opinion on which of two photos is preferable in this discussion? Thanks. Nightscream (talk) 15:21, 24 February 2020 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Case/Motorsports opened

You recently offered a statement in a request for arbitration. The Arbitration Committee has accepted that request for arbitration and an arbitration case has been opened at Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Case/Motorsports. Evidence that you wish the arbitrators to consider should be added to the evidence subpage, at Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Case/Motorsports/Evidence. Please add your evidence by March 13, 2020, which is when the evidence phase closes. You can also contribute to the case workshop subpage, Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Case/Motorsports/Workshop. For a guide to the arbitration process, see Wikipedia:Arbitration/Guide to arbitration. For the Arbitration Committee, Dreamy Jazz 🎷 talk to me | my contributions 00:48, 28 February 2020 (UTC)

Happy First Edit Day!

Happy First Edit Day!

Have a very happy first edit anniversary!

From the Birthday Committee, CAPTAIN RAJU(T) 04:55, 1 March 2020 (UTC)

Whoosh another year goes zipping by S. Congrats. MarnetteD|Talk 05:00, 1 March 2020 (UTC)

Happy First Edit Day!

Happy First Edit Day, Softlavender, from the Wikipedia Birthday Committee! Have a great day! Bobherry Talk Edits 14:05, 1 March 2020 (UTC)

The Signpost: 1 March 2020

* Read this Signpost in full * Single-page * Unsubscribe * MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 18:46, 1 March 2020 (UTC)

Arbitration case opened

In 2018, you offered a statement in a request for arbitration. The Arbitration Committee has now accepted that request for arbitration, and an arbitration case has been opened at Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Case/Jytdog. Evidence that you wish the arbitrators to consider should be added to the evidence subpage, at Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Case/Jytdog/Evidence. Please add your evidence by March 23, 2020, which is when the evidence phase closes. You can also contribute to the case workshop subpage, Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Case/Jytdog/Workshop. For a guide to the arbitration process, see Wikipedia:Arbitration/Guide to arbitration.

All content, links, and diffs from the original ARC and the latest ARC are being read into the evidence for this case.

The secondary mailing list is in use for this case: arbcom-en-b@wikimedia.org

For the Arbitration Committee, CThomas3 (talk) 17:17, 9 March 2020 (UTC)

The Signpost: 29 March 2020

* Read this Signpost in full * Single-page * Unsubscribe * MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 17:43, 29 March 2020 (UTC)

Good resource for research books

David Gerard put me onto Library Genesis a few years back. It has some excellent research resources - including a copy of his own most excellent book on blockchains, which sadly, I had already bought - and is always my first stop nowadays when hunting down an elusive text or well, anything. --Pete (talk) 07:20, 10 April 2020 (UTC)

The Signpost: 26 April 2020

* Read this Signpost in full * Single-page * Unsubscribe * MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 18:18, 26 April 2020 (UTC)

Talk: Metropolitan (1990 film)

Hello. I left a rebuttal in the article's talk page concerning removal of my edit. Thanks! FunksBrother (talk) 01:24, 29 April 2020 (UTC)

Dream Ballet vs. Dream ballet

Please comment if you have an opinion: Talk:Dream Ballet. -- Ssilvers (talk) 22:09, 11 May 2020 (UTC)

The Signpost: 31 May 2020

* Read this Signpost in full * Single-page * Unsubscribe * MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 19:06, 31 May 2020 (UTC)

The Signpost: 28 June 2020

* Read this Signpost in full * Single-page * Unsubscribe * MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 18:53, 28 June 2020 (UTC)

Sad

I share some of the same sentiments, Softlavender. It makes me sad to lose Bbb23, not unlike I felt when we lost Alex Shih over something similar so make mine x2. Perhaps I'm too much of a softy. :-( Atsme Talk 📧 02:30, 18 July 2020 (UTC)

Couldn't say it on the SPI, since I have to be in "professional" mode there...

...but I read your userpage, and now since I see you're a Duke alum (and since I have family who went to a certain university to the next state to the north I am now obligated to regret endorsing your SPI. Oh well, live and learn and all that :) GeneralNotability (talk) 03:23, 20 July 2020 (UTC)

Hmmmph. At least you ain't a damn Tar Heel. So I'll be generous and let this WP:PA slide. For now. (Plus, at least you ain't one of those insufferable Roll Tide people -- yeeeks!). PS: My bro did his medical residency at UVA, and his undergrad work at Washington and Lee, so perhaps at least one member of my family is allowed a seat at the table among you hifalutin' people? Softlavender (talk) 03:56, 20 July 2020 (UTC)
Oooh, you've insulted the Tide - now you've done it! This means war. GeneralNotability (talk) 12:46, 20 July 2020 (UTC)

Bbb23

Thank you for your comments on the ArbCom/Bbb23 fracas, which I heartily agree with. Bbb23 was, bar none, the best CU I've seen in my 15 years here, and I have no doubt that much of that was due to the "fishing" checks which ArbCom thought were out of bounds. My understanding is that other language Wikipedias, working under the very same WMF policies, are much more liberal in allowing their CUs to investigate, and I simply don't understand why that isn't the case on English Wikipedia as well. Perhaps too much influence from American fear of the state? I dunno, all I know is that ArbCom's decisions this year have been astoundingly bad, that they seem to care more about what WMF and T&S thinks of them then they do about protecting the community, and their decisions reflect that.

Anyway, I threw my rant at the time that Bbb23 was relieved of his CU bit, now you've had your turn. I'm just waiting for the next election, where I plan on questioning any current arbitrators who decide to run as thoroughly as I can about their individual responsibilities for the bad decisions the committee has made so far this term. Beyond My Ken (talk) 19:16, 20 July 2020 (UTC)

Yes to all of that. And yes, this ArbCom believes, ever since the FramBan, that their job is to protect any editor who complains about any admin, and to deal as harshly as possible with the admin, even if it means making what should be a community-wide decision via their secret star chamber of only a handful of admins. It's a terrible loss to Wikipedia, and the current ArbCom, many of whom I had faith in as arbs prior to this year, can't or won't see it. Softlavender (talk) 02:05, 21 July 2020 (UTC)

The Signpost: 2 August 2020

* Read this Signpost in full * Single-page * Unsubscribe * MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 18:25, 2 August 2020 (UTC)

PetSmart

Wow, oh wow. You must have been working on that for quite a while. Thumbs up icon Wow. Normal Op (talk) 08:33, 28 August 2020 (UTC)

Lockdown is boring, Normal Op. Even with a cat. ;-) Softlavender (talk) 08:35, 28 August 2020 (UTC)

The Signpost: 30 August 2020

* Read this Signpost in full * Single-page * Unsubscribe * MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 17:33, 30 August 2020 (UTC)

Miami New Drama

This edit removed summaries of several productions, with references, and some other information. Do you agree with it? If not, kindly restore the information that you think is noteworthy (but please put it in chrono order). All the best, -- Ssilvers (talk) 04:50, 18 September 2020 (UTC)

They were also scared away from citing *anything* to their own website. Do you think there is any info on the website that should be restored to the article about the history, their schools program, etc? -- Ssilvers (talk) 05:21, 18 September 2020 (UTC)
  • Hi Ssilvers, and thank you for helping to improve the article. I've kind of run out of steam on it for the moment. I think a lot of the material that was removed is probably relevant and can be restored, but I don't have the energy to pick through and restore it. So I would suggest you use your judgment on that. In terms of citing their own website, I think that could be acceptable in small quantities. However, it would probably be better if possible to find the information via the Miami Herald, which has written tons of articles on the company; options for searching the news site: [18]; [19]; [20] (on this last one, insert "miami new drama" in quotation marks). -- Softlavender (talk) 05:42, 18 September 2020 (UTC)

You added "with a goal of creating a community-based regional theater...". Does this mean that the actors are not paid? If they are paid, we should remove "community-based". In fact, the whole "goal" thing is not helpful, in my opinion. Please reply here. -- Ssilvers (talk) 01:55, 21 September 2020 (UTC)

Possibly should be "community-centered". Check the citation [21], which emphasizes "community" (do Control+F) over and over again as what Hausmann was seeking to emphasize and create. Softlavender (talk) 02:06, 21 September 2020 (UTC)
If it says the word "community", everyone will assume it is an amateur company. I don't care what Hausmann said, and in fact, I think that quoting this fluffy sentence about his goals is not helpful. The question is, what kind of theatre company did they actually create, which would be more helpful if stated by people independent of them. But if it's a professional company we should say so, and take out that it's any kind of "community" theatre. -- Ssilvers (talk) 02:22, 21 September 2020 (UTC)
I think it's best to have lengthy content discussions on the talk page of the article, so could you pose your concerns there? Softlavender (talk) 02:25, 21 September 2020 (UTC)
I'm trying to help you save the article. Why are you being difficult? I'm unwatching the article and unwatching this Talk page. -- Ssilvers (talk) 02:33, 21 September 2020 (UTC)
I have no investment in the article; I didn't create it or contribute to it prior to AfD, and I'm not trying to "save" it. I'm improving it based on the majority of coverage the company has received. That's fine if you are no longer interested in it. Softlavender (talk) 02:42, 21 September 2020 (UTC)
Thank you for your opinion on WP:Requests for adminship/Acid Of Carbon Acidic Carbon (Corrode) (Corrosive liquid) 13:27, 22 September 2020 (UTC)
(talk page watcher) Softlavender, you mention a concern, there, of socking; I agree. That they have a particular interest in G5 seems of relevance... 2A02:C7F:BE04:700:A9E5:E4C4:1D6:F054 (talk) 17:34, 22 September 2020 (UTC)

Any objections to WP:G5?

I saw that you nominated all four files uploaded by a sock for deletion. These files were uploaded on August 22, the main account was blocked earlier that month. I've tagged one as a blatant copyright violation. Any objections to just burning the rest through WP:G5, "delete pages created by banned or blocked users during the ban or block?" davidwr/(talk)/(contribs) 17:31, 26 September 2020 (UTC)

davidwr I have no problem with that. (I was just using Twinkle and didn't take the time to research the options.) Softlavender (talk) 03:49, 27 September 2020 (UTC)
Three remaining are tagged WP:G5. davidwr/(talk)/(contribs) 14:38, 27 September 2020 (UTC)

The Signpost: 27 September 2020

* Read this Signpost in full * Single-page * Unsubscribe * MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 22:48, 27 September 2020 (UTC)

The Signpost: 27 September 2020

* Read this Signpost in full * Single-page * Unsubscribe * MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 22:54, 27 September 2020 (UTC)

Thanks for the Prompt Response

Thanks for your prompt response suggesting speedy deletion for the irrelevant redirection related to my request at Wikipedia:Redirects_for_discussion/Log/2020_September_28#Enola Homosexual. After all, all is well that ends well, cheers! Amit Dash (talk) 19:22, 28 September 2020 (UTC)

Barnstar

The Anti-Flame Barnstar
I cannot thank you enough for the help you offered at the WP:ANI thread, so I'm giving you this barnstar. Thanks to your advice and User:EdChem's offer to step in, it actually feels like we might be able to resolve the issues we've been facing at WP:ELEM, and that to me would be wonderful. ^_^ Double sharp (talk) 20:10, 9 October 2020 (UTC)


Thanks, Double sharp! I really appreciate that! Softlavender (talk) 04:56, 10 October 2020 (UTC)

Davey2010

Thank you for bringing the {{No ping}} template to my attention. I was not aware it existed, but I'll use it from now on when appropriate. AlgaeGraphix (talk) 20:24, 26 October 2020 (UTC)

Oh, good AlgaeGraphix, I'm glad that helped. Maybe you should mention that on the thread, so Davey2010 doesn't have to mute you, which I think he is intending to. Softlavender (talk) 20:26, 26 October 2020 (UTC)
Well, he closed the thread himself, so I don't see that reopening it would be all that helpful. AlgaeGraphix (talk) 20:33, 26 October 2020 (UTC)
No, he only closed the IBAN section of the thread, AlgaeGraphix. Softlavender (talk) 20:41, 26 October 2020 (UTC)
Not to drag this on but in regards to your comment here
A) The proposal was completely done in good faith and I had admitted my mistakes in that very proposal.
B) "it's time to question whether the blockee should have been early unblocked. Perhaps Davey2010 needs a TBAN from trains if he cannot control his vulgarity. Or a one-way IBAN prohibiting him from interacting with AG" - "Whether I was unblocked a day early or not that proposal still would've been filed and again not to sound like a broken record but had they not pinged me with that comment I wouldn't have reacted the way I did,
FYI I wasn't looking to cause more drama with that proposal - My plan was to try and de-escalate it and at that time I thought that was the best possible method. Hindsight is a lovely thing and maybe the best thing I could've done is said nothing at all.
As I said not wanting to drag this on but felt your comment was unfair and felt that I had to address it.
Happy editing and Take care, Regards, –Davey2010Talk 23:54, 26 October 2020 (UTC)

The Signpost: 1 November 2020

* Read this Signpost in full * Single-page * Unsubscribe * MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 19:53, 1 November 2020 (UTC)

Really???

Certainly looks like an improvement to me. Johnbod (talk) 19:00, 8 November 2020 (UTC)

Regarding your ArbCom statement

I guess you may not know this yet because it all resolved so suddenly, but actually the entire issue I had with Sandbh got itself resolved between the two of us just a few days ago. As you can see, we've provided a joint statement to that effect, and you can see the discussion at Sandbh's talk page that led to this sudden but happy resolution. Basically, that's because it seems that the official process from the International Union of Pure and Applied Chemistry (the relevant body) that was meant to solve the eternal-bickering-inducing La vs Lu issue that started all this appears not to have gotten stalled after all as I had thought. Therefore, we've amicably agreed to freeze the dispute and wait for the official results of their deliberation before we reopen anything, since in any case whatever consensus there is now will certainly have to be reevaluated in the light of an actually official decision on the subject. This understanding is also why I'm extremely sure this cannot flare up again, because until an official decision appears neither of us plan on starting it again, and once an official decision appears the debate on what Wikipedia should show probably becomes orders of magnitude less controversial.

Currently we are working quite fine with each other and User:R8R on the Periodic table article based on suggestions by User:EdChem who so kindly mediated this. In fact R8R has helpfully trimmed down the section on that very La vs Lu issue that started this bickering to something more like its due weight. Since neither I nor Sandbh have complained about the result, it seems to me that we've successfully come up with something neutral and properly weighted, and that normal WP behaviour is going on again.

I admit that this is probably not an outcome that would have been expected from just last week, but apparently getting taken to ArbCom against both of our wills was unpleasant enough that it created the funny result that we both apparently decided shelving the issue between ourselves would be far less bad than duking it out at ArbCom.

I also admit that this did not occur together with DePiep, and that it probably should have. OTOH, he seems to also have been added to the case as a party by the OP against his will if I read the situation right, and in general the dispute I had with Sandbh was a very separate thing from the ones DePiep had with other project participants (and mostly not with me in any case). I hope the second one can be resolved as easily as the first was, though. Double sharp (talk) 17:14, 16 November 2020 (UTC)

Hi Softlavender, I think "It was opened by someone who is not even remotely involved, and who has no clue about what is going on, and who does not even know who the main participants are." and "The OP should really mind their own business, especially when they are so uninformed about the situation." are entirely unnecessary ad hominems and ask you to consider removing them from your statement. Lev¡vich 17:26, 16 November 2020 (UTC)
The redevelopment of the periodic table article, to address any shortcomings it has wrt to FA status has been proceeding nicely, further to the WP:ELEM fresh energy initiative. Sandbh (talk) 22:57, 16 November 2020 (UTC)

Article ratings

Hi Softlavender, I saw your revert on the talk page of Bryce Hall (internet personality). I may have started the article, but it is not "my article" and other editors have and are encouraged contribute. This is the first I've heard of such an objection to an article assessment. Almost all of my ratings (this one included) are based on the semi-automatic WP:RATER ORES. I've read through WP:ASSESS and see nothing about not rating articles you have started (other than A, GA, FA which require independent review). I'm curious of your thoughts (: TJMSmith (talk) 21:37, 20 November 2020 (UTC)

Hi TJMSmith. I've started a thread at the Teahouse just now posing the question: [22]. (I don't know of any other highly active venue to ask the question.) Softlavender (talk) 21:59, 20 November 2020 (UTC)
Also, I do not agree that the Bryce Hall article is C class. I believe it is Start class. Since WP:Content assessment#Common concerns says "What if I don't agree with a rating? Feel free to change it—within reason—if you think a different rating is justified; in the case of major disputes, the WikiProject as a whole can discuss the issue and come to a consensus as to the best rating", I can add the Start rating to the banner if you like. Softlavender (talk) 22:04, 20 November 2020 (UTC)
That's fine. WP:RATER is a prediction, so consensus can vary. It's probably on the border between start and C class. I really don't feel strongly about it so feel free to do whatever you'd like. I think page protection would help the Hall article the most. Poorly sourced info gets added frequently. TJMSmith (talk) 23:31, 20 November 2020 (UTC)
I have re-rated it. The reason it's not even a C class is because it reveals nothing about why he is significant, or even why he is notable beyond having lots of followers. It's a "So what?" article. It does not reveal one single thing about the content of his work. Softlavender (talk) 23:39, 20 November 2020 (UTC)
Fair enough. It's my quick take that he might be famous for being famous. Alas, his article isn't high on my list of priorities. I typically edit WP:WOMRED-related content. Best, TJMSmith (talk) 23:51, 20 November 2020 (UTC)

ArbCom 2020 Elections voter message

Hello! Voting in the 2020 Arbitration Committee elections is now open until 23:59 (UTC) on Monday, 7 December 2020. All eligible users are allowed to vote. Users with alternate accounts may only vote once.

The Arbitration Committee is the panel of editors responsible for conducting the Wikipedia arbitration process. It has the authority to impose binding solutions to disputes between editors, primarily for serious conduct disputes the community has been unable to resolve. This includes the authority to impose site bans, topic bans, editing restrictions, and other measures needed to maintain our editing environment. The arbitration policy describes the Committee's roles and responsibilities in greater detail.

If you wish to participate in the 2020 election, please review the candidates and submit your choices on the voting page. If you no longer wish to receive these messages, you may add {{NoACEMM}} to your user talk page. MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 01:40, 24 November 2020 (UTC)

The Signpost: 29 November 2020

* Read this Signpost in full * Single-page * Unsubscribe * MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 17:47, 29 November 2020 (UTC)

The Signpost: 28 December 2020

* Read this Signpost in full * Single-page * Unsubscribe * MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 04:26, 28 December 2020 (UTC)

The Signpost: 31 January 2021

* Read this Signpost in full * Single-page * Unsubscribe * MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 20:11, 31 January 2021 (UTC)

Help needed on the subject of Alexei Navalny!

Greetings,

I was just looking at the edit history of the Alexei Navalny (Russian politician) page, and noticed you have edited related pages fairly often. Since you may have some expertise on the guy, would it be possible for you to look over a fairly heated debate thats happening right now at Talk:2024 Russian presidential election#Navalny? I thought that it would be worth mentioning him being barred from running in 2024 like in 2018 (likley for political reasons), but a user keeps insisting that its Western propaganda. Looking for a reliable editor to mediate. Thank you. LauraWilliamson (talk) 14:12, 9 February 2021 (UTC)

The Signpost: 28 February 2021

* Read this Signpost in full * Single-page * Unsubscribe * MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 21:30, 28 February 2021 (UTC)

Happy First Edit Day!

Happy First Edit Day!

Have a very happy first edit anniversary!

From the Birthday Committee, CAPTAIN RAJU(T) 22:07, 1 March 2021 (UTC)

The Signpost: 25 April 2021

* Read this Signpost in full * Single-page * Unsubscribe * MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 22:33, 25 April 2021 (UTC)

The Signpost: 28 March 2021

* Read this Signpost in full * Single-page * Unsubscribe * MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 20:45, 28 March 2021 (UTC)

Oxford Interview?

Hi Softlavender hope you don't mind me reaching out. I'm a graduate researcher interested in global health and how its represented on Wiki, specifically the Burden of Disease Study and Institute of Health Metrics and Evaluation (IHME). I noticed you've been involved in a lot of discussions surrounding the 2017 situation of paid editing re Vipul & Riceissa & Ethanbas. I have some outstanding questions about it. Would you be willing to speak with me on a 30-60 minute call?

Thanks for considering!

--Whiskiz (talk) 19:27, 19 April 2021 (UTC)

Hi Whiskiz, all of that activity now seems long ago and far away. The main person involved in bringing the issue to light is no longer on Wikipedia. I really don't have anything to say about it, much less 30-60 minutes' worth. I wish you luck and wish you well, but this is not something that I'm interested in doing. Softlavender (talk) 21:47, 19 April 2021 (UTC)

thanks you for the honest & timely response :D Whiskiz (talk) 09:03, 20 April 2021 (UTC)

The Signpost: 25 April 2021

* Read this Signpost in full * Single-page * Unsubscribe * MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 04:31, 26 April 2021 (UTC)

Archiving of WP:AN/I

I have undone your archiving of a thread [23] regarding a WP:CBAN proposal of an editor. This discussion is still open, and needs to be closed by an uninvolved administrator. Please see WP:CBAN for further instructions, and please do not archive this thread again. If you have questions, let me know. Thanks, --Hammersoft (talk) 00:34, 14 May 2021 (UTC)

Thanks for catching that, Hammersoft. My error. Softlavender (talk) 01:17, 14 May 2021 (UTC)
  • Ha! I had just looked at the purple box, and didn't really register the rest of the conversation, as for some reason there were so many zillions of old threads to archive. Thanks for alerting me, as I've now !voted in the poll. Softlavender (talk) 03:07, 14 May 2021 (UTC)
  • Yeah, there were a large number of old threads that needed to be archived. I thought a bot archived WP:AN/I, or maybe it did and its offline. Thanks for archiving so many other very stale threads! --Hammersoft (talk) 11:18, 14 May 2021 (UTC)

translation

Und ich wäre so gern Primadonna gewesen ("And I would have been happy to have been a primadonna") - tough. I didn't do a translation, - was the book translated? No talk about happiness in the original. Deepl offers ""And I would have loved to have been a prima donna." but I feel that "loved" is too strong, also there's this sweet undercurrent of irony that's probably impossible in English. The duplication of "have been" seems not elegant. Just food for thought. --Gerda Arendt (talk) 08:56, 26 May 2021 (UTC)

"I would have been" is correct idiomatic English for the subjunctive; "would have loved to have been" is more idiomatic than "would have been happy to have been". It's a humorously ironic title not meant to be taken seriously, and "Ich wäre so gern _____ gewesen" translates best to "I would have loved to have been ______" in idiomatic English. An alternative I think would be "I would gladly have been a primadonna", since "gern" commonly means "gladly" in most usages. Softlavender (talk) 09:01, 26 May 2021 (UTC)
Thank you, helped. (It keep amazing me how much is "loved" in English, while "lieben" is a quite selective thing in German.) --Gerda Arendt (talk) 09:07, 26 May 2021 (UTC)
Hi again Gerda. In this title, it all depends on the amount of outrageous irony that is intended. If the irony is mild, I think it should be "I would gladly have been a primadonna". I'm going to change it to that, if no objections. Softlavender (talk) 09:13, 26 May 2021 (UTC)
I think there's also another distinction that I'm not clear on. When she says that, does she mean "I would gladly have acted like a primadonna", or "I would have been glad to have been treated like (or been seen as) a primadonna"? I'm not really clear on that or on how "gewesen" is meant here -- did she secretly want to act like a primadonna, or secretly want to be treated like a primadonna? I think the answer to that would affect the English translation. Softlavender (talk) 09:29, 26 May 2021 (UTC)
I'd think she would not have meant only one, just that as a mezzo, you are more often supporting than leading. I think if she had meant only acting, she might have said "Und ich hätte so gerne Primadonna gespielt". I think we should not miss the "so" in the translation which is - at least in German - the key to the irony even in writing. --Gerda Arendt (talk) 09:45, 26 May 2021 (UTC)
Good point about mezzos; I see what you mean. Well, if we want to emphasize the irony (and the "so"), we should restore it to "I would have loved to have been". I'm fine either way. Softlavender (talk) 09:55, 26 May 2021 (UTC)
Feel free, both fine. --Gerda Arendt (talk) 10:33, 26 May 2021 (UTC)

I am with You , Kailas Jhaveri,

Published the Lord's day on Feb 29th 2004 Sri Aurobindo Ashram 605 002 Pondicherry Published on the Occcasion of the Mother 125 Birthday

SO this is not a self published Book ...You want to talk ? your friend Riquix does not SadirahFierg (talk) 04:55, 29 May 2021 (UTC)

Mike Salvino

We disagree on this one, which is fine. Either the sourcing has had a negative improvement since you accepted it, or it was always to PR pieces and press releases. I have not checked the detail. As a courtesy I am letting you know I have sent it to AfD. As a reviewer myself I make no comment at AfD about AfC acceptances, and I remain neutral on any of my own acceptances sent by others for deletion discussion.

I would not have rated it as C Class, had I accepted it. It is full of WP:BOMBARD, and is an obvious paid piece even without the paid declaration by the creating editor. It is, however, easy to be fooled by these allegedly well referenced drafts FiddleTimtrent FaddleTalk to me 10:58, 8 June 2021 (UTC)

The Signpost: 27 June 2021

* Read this Signpost in full * Single-page * Unsubscribe * MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 20:16, 27 June 2021 (UTC)

Splitting discussion for John Gielgud, roles and awards

An article that you have been involved with (John Gielgud, roles and awards ) has content that is proposed to be removed and moved to another article (List of awards and nominations received by John Gielgud). Notice of this proposal has not been circulated by the nominator to contributors. If you are interested, please visit the discussion.

The article List of awards and nominations received by John Gielgud already exists and has been created duplicating material in the article John Gielgud, roles and awards: it has therefore been nominated for deletion, and the disucssion can be found here. Contributions to either or both discussions are welcomed.

Thank you. Smerus (talk) 15:27, 4 July 2021 (UTC)

The Signpost: 25 July 2021

* Read this Signpost in full * Single-page * Unsubscribe * MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 23:12, 25 July 2021 (UTC)

The Signpost: 29 August 2021

* Read this Signpost in full * Single-page * Unsubscribe * MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 19:45, 29 August 2021 (UTC)
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk:Softlavender/Archive_10&oldid=1068193493"